The above (and passage below) relates to research for an ongoing Work In Progress regarding a republication with which I am involved, of which regular Lashtalians may be aware but which I don’t really want to overpublicise further beforehand as it is unlikely to see the light of day for at least another five years, however. I originally thought of posting the following extract from it before Christmas, but other things have prevented it to date.
Nevertheless I would be glad of any feedback, corrections to any historical/ factual data or indeed relevant further information relating to it (by confidential PM if necessary) which, even though it will not be published in due course until some time after 2017, needs an update from the c. the mid-90s up to until least the present day. There is material in an early Red Flame, I believe, but so far I have not been able to get hold of a copy (or) to go through the contents.
(To some peripheral extent, the subject also relates to aspects of the discussion contained within several of the contributions made to the “New book on the Gnostic Mass” thread on the Thelema board, around my Reply #103 there and thereabouts.)
In nomine patris, filiis, et sp – or rather, Babalon (Procul, o procul este profani!):
Norma N. Joy Conquest
The Gnostic Catholic Church
Despite earnest-sounding protestations coming from “Caliphornian” O.T.O. Frater Superior William Breeze in The Magical Link for Winter 1990 [Vol. III, No. 4, pp. 25-30], that
From my earliest magical training I was taught that apostolic succession, like all other grades and titles, was ultimately hollow… What mattered was the “afflatus”, the presence of the Holy Spirit in the properly-prepared gnostic initiate…
it seemed that far from “afflatus”, it may have been“inflatus” which became present, at least so far as the cult of his particular personage in the Gnostic Catholic Church [Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica] was concerned. As Msgr [Monseigneur] Tau Silenus, the “Holy Father” or “Patriarch” of the Church and alleged true descendant of the Matthew and Villate apostolic successions, he has been at pains to establish these credentials or else has others such as the “Right Rev. , D.D.” to present his credentials for him. In order to hedge his bets either way and to provide additional insurance for his catholic ambitions, however, the Holy Father declared that “rather than relying on “apostolic succession” the E.G.C. in the O.T.O. would rely for its basis on the succession of the office of “Frater Superior”, which post-Crowleyan office Breeze as Hymenaeus Beta also holds. Furthermore, his magical philosophy bore a remarkable resemblance to Peter J. Carroll’s “Chaos” magical approach of “Fake it ‘til you make it” when he added, immediately following the preceeding passage,
…the belief that you were something could become a surrogate for the training and aspiration necessary to actually become something.
In other words, merely believing oneself to be a Bishop or an Ipsissimus (à la Carroll) might preclude the need to do any of the work necessary to reach such an exalted state of being.
The nebulous Gnostic Catholic Church is, and was, a shadowy ill-defined body which never had an executive, pontiff-style leader before Tau Silenus – Father William – assumed the rôle, and within it, Crowley himself was only ever another “wandering bishop” - if that. Nor have the Church’s precise connections with the O.T.O. ever been clearly ratified, with the issue as obscure in Crowley’s day as it was previously in Reuss’s. In Thelemic terms, Crowley saw its main – in reality, its sole – purpose of existence as being loosely responsible for the performance of its only rite: the “Gnostic Mass” (Liber XV), which he composed especially for the purpose in 1913, and which was described in Confessions as:
…the central ceremony of its [the O.T.O.’s] public and private celebrations, corresponding to the Mass of the Gnostic Catholic Church. …
The Gnostic Mass today (with its concomitant revisions duly authorised by the current Patriarch), although a moving and beautiful pageant when performed well with joy and beauty, is of limited usefulness as a device of transubstantiation with the length of the service and elaborate preparations necessary for its ceremonial tending to work against the benefits received, which are no different in quality (and certainly no better) than those gained through other simulated or real sex-magical acts, or through an individual’s raising of kundalini, or through their yogic practice of, say, pranayama. Moreover, the enactment of the rite tends to favour those who consciously or unconsciously psychologically indulge themselves in drawing the maximum pomp and circumstance out of a drama to the discomfiture of their audience, in preference to those who simply want to get to the heart of the ceremonial as directly as possible; so much so that if just one of the officers – the Deacon, for example – proves to be amateurish and inept, then he or she will manage to ruin the whole atmosphere and the magick for everybody. Nor in the plague-conscious ’Nineties can anyone apart from the “cook” ever be entirely sure that the natural ingredients in the communal Cakes of Light have been properly prepared to the minimum satisfactory standards of hygiene health and safety.
As a measure of its effectiveness, Crowley seems to have neither performed in nor attended the Gnostic Mass at any time since his Abbey of Thelema at Cefalù in the early 1920s - if then. It is in fact arguable whether Crowley actually participated in, or was present, at any full performance of the Gnostic Mass during his entire lifetime. Quite possibly he found other more effective ways of employing his time. This notwithstanding, Breeze has solemnly declared (in the same Link piece referred to earlier) that “I am totally committed to making the Gnostic Catholic Church a fit vehicle for the expression of Thelema.” (In a non-absolutist universe, and in the aftermath of Waco, Jonestown, etc., one is of course automatically suspicious of anyone – but especially a religious leader – who formally declares him or herself to be “totally” anything: totalitarianism being the bane and reversal of civilization, relativity and Thelema itself.) To this end, Breeze then speedily suppressed the free speech of the late Rusty Sporer’s “heretical” Gnostic Catholic Church quarterly fanzine (gnamed the Gnostic Gnews) for politely daring to have the effrontery to suggest that E.G.C. members might wish to engage in practices outside of the direction of the O.T.O. – by which was meant, naturally, the “Caliphornian” O.T.O. under Hymenaeus Beta; as the Gnews’ penultimate edition for Summer 1989 (Vol. 1, No. 3) boldly declared:
[…]for the most part the Bishop(s) who form(s) a local church must make the decisions about how it will be administered. Some Bishops may do best by running their own organizations, while other Bishops (especially in areas of high concentration) may do best by forming a local “synod” to manage church affairs. Whatever best fits your situation should be achievable under the liberal statutes of the O.T.O.’s Bylaws. [!] In any event such local organizations must be in accord with the Church’s spirit of religious freedom; no Bishop or group of Bishops can ever claim “jurisdiction” over all the Gnostic Catholics within their territory.
It seems clear to me that our current Patriarch is adopting an ecclesiastical role of primus inter pares rather than just that of “infallible” pope, which means that the day-to-day growth and continuation of the Order’s branch of Gnostic Catholicism is more than ever the responsibility of each Bishop who is a living transmitter of this particular lineage. [… my italics - J.B.]
This was either a masterpiece of understated subversion and insurrection or else an astonishingly wide-eyed and innocent hope that self-determination would rule the day. Either way, Rusty must clearly have somehow gotten wind of a strong stench of disapproval in the air because, on the front page of the next (and terminal) edition of Gnostic Gnews for Autumn 1989 (which must have been almost completed when he added it) the following balm was hastily administered under the bold and underlined banner of “DISCLAIMER”:.
The contents of the articles found in this work are those of the writer and do not necessarily express the official opinion or the policy of Ordo Templi Orientis. These opinions are exactly that: OPINIONS.[sic]
The staff is not responsible for any possible conflicts between the opinions found in differing articles.
We welcome any comments.
But even this palliative was too late to save the doomed Church organ from the waxing wroth of “Father William” Breeze, an “ecclesiastical” figure apparently much in the mould of Old Jehovah and who, like that demiurge himself, far from seeking to encourage any independent thinking or liberty of expression, preferred instead to stamp events with the mark of his own personality. By papal edict – or rather, by O.T.O. By-Law – never again could anybody just “wander off” and become made a Bishop without Father William’s own personal say-so. Never again could anybody in the E.G.C. congregation, anywhere, become ordained a Bishop without first becoming one of the chosen few VII[sup:4s6svl2k]o[/sup:4s6svl2k]s in the Caliphornian O.T.O.; nor be a Priest or Priestess either who was not otherwise a Fourth Degree in that august assembly. (An avatar of) Prometheus, Breeze certainly was not. His word, like the word of God, was final; and in The Magical Link for Winter 1990, like Jehovah with much wailing & gnashing of teeth and peevish righteous indignation (and arguably with a certain measure of transference also), he smote with vengeance most terrible against the wayward children of his flock:
I have lost patience with a few recent manifestations of the EGC, for which I am doubtless responsible. Some are absurd and thus easily identifiable, e.g. egocentric personality-cults that go on endlessly about the importance of their apostolic successions and dress up as Roman Catholic prelates. Others have grave consequences for others, such as the thoughtless consecration of bishops without training or preparation by either party, and without the knowledge of the Frater Superior [of the C.O.T.O.]. I cannot recognize such consecrations, as they harm [sic] the bishop, the candidate, and the Order generally by interfering with OTO organizational work. This trend has been fuelled by OTO’s sponsorship of a newsletter exclusively devoted to EGC studies, the Gnostic Gnews, which in spite of itself came to create a growing consciousness of the EGC as something apart from OTO, the very opposite of what was intended. …
Speaking from my own personal experience, the edifice of the E.G.C. today is of negligible value and has, as Breeze himself correctly touched upon, manifested itself in the main as would-be prelates sanctimoniously swanning around in their vestments and regalia in the belief that they are holier-than-thou.* If Thelemites wish to perform the Mass, it is not necessary for them to await ex cathedra dispensation from on high or to have a regulatory body’s authorisation in order to do so – far less that of a would-be almighty and all-powerful “Church” co-existent with and under the direct control of the political “State” of the Caliphornian O.T.O.. It is not expedient to go into what appears to be an unnecessary and irrelevant sideline any more deeply, other than to remark what while the E.G.C.’s many disadvantages are clearly apparent, no useful advantage whatsoever appears to be served by it apart from that of being a social club for the congregation – but then that function is already amply catered for by the quasi/ would-be masonic (Caliphornian) O.T.O..
© reserved, Norma N. Joy Conquest 1996/ 2013 E.V.
* See for instance my remarks in the “New Book on the Gnostic Mass” thread as mentioned earlier, in the vicinity of Reply #103. (Sorry I cannot “Link” for you!) :-[
Jamie,
It is not transubstantiation in the Gnostic Mass. It is transmutation.
Jamie,
It is not transubstantiation in the Gnostic Mass. It is transmutation.
Tramsmutation is a close synonym (as is also transmogrification), but if you check the context of my reference there was an allusion to the (Roman Catholic) doctrine whereby a “miraculous” change is instituted in the Eucharist, so that “bread” and “wine” become the “body” and “blood” of Jesus Christ, respectively. (The principles behind each type of Mass are the same in terms of there is an aspect of (spiritual) nourishment involved which is similar to the celebration of “Will” before a meal.) The parallel with the “Gnostic” Mass is where the Cakes of Light are used in place of bread (the wine is retained, though hopefully of a less insipid calibre than most churchy communion wine!), and this matter is referenced further down in that same paragraph where I also pointed out that the Gnostic Mass would seem to involve a lot of preliminaries, etc., basically leading up to the ingestion of this transubstantiated cakes and wine by the congregation as the identical final result (to use alchemic jargon).
“Bless you my son!”
N. Joy
it seems the wine in jamie's mass is pressed from sour grapes
Sorry WilliamThirteen, your wit (taking it to be an attempt at wit, rather than a serious observation?) is so rareified & sophisticated it is quite altogether beyond my comprehension. Perhaps you could explain it a bit more for my benefit and also for possibly anyone else's benefit who might not have managed to get it either? But to otherwise clarify for yew: thankfully there was never any sign of sour grapes being present either metaphorically or in any of the Mass wine which I consumed myself, or at least certainly none that I was aware of, with possibly one exception: have you heard tell of a ‘movement’ in the 90s, not Totally unconnected with the policy of the present Patriarch who was known to be a little anti-alcohol, to introduce grape juice instead of the real dionysus, as it were, which (unsurprisingly) didn’t go down very well for the (very) short while it was experimentally instituted & I think was then abandoned, or at least been put back on the back shelf, where it belongs. Might you have possibly been referring in a backhanded fashion to that?
Drink deep & laugh long:
N. Joy
I think it was just a light-hearted remark, Jamie, and probably doesn't bear exegesis.
There does seem a bit of `snark` directed towards the OTO (or the COTO as it is written int the above OP) and its current leadership.
Whilst one is free to write what they will on the internet/forums and printed matter I myself feel that anything overly personal opinion wise (such as in the extract in the OP) in a future book such as this would detract from the future document/book.
I understand what William referred to in his feedback concerning `sour grapes` and I also picked up on that, the information and general content in the OP is interesting and full, just as I have already written some of the tone detracts from what it could ultimately be.
Please take this feedback in the generous manner it is intended(towards the success and reception of your future publication - I will probably buy it) and is not a critique upon your person.
*Concerning Bishophood - my knowledge is scant but I remember reading something a while back that they tightened up on `granting?/bestowing?` (I dont know the correct term) of wandering bishops turning other people into being bishops because it was being done too willy nilly with Bishops wandering all over the place placing hands on individuals here and there saying you are a bishop etc.
I guess an organization needs less bishops and more congregants 🙂
Yes, thank you Ouch, this is the sort of interesting feedback I was looking for & can appreciate, and speaking as the OP/ author, one is probably always the last to detect when certain ‘personal’ elements of interpretation come in. It is almost word-for-word as written in 1995-6, and maybe I was feeling a little more ‘emotional’ about things in those days, perhaps?! Still, I will take your views (and by extension those of others) into account in the event of a rewrite, which would probably be when I do an update.
Obviously my prime interest as a historian is to present the facts as dispassionately & objectively as possible, and while allowing for an ‘authorial’ narrative voice to make things as interesting & as less dry as possible a fine balance does have to be drawn between this and as, I said, possibly coming across as over-emotive. As my old history prof. used to say, quoting someone else, “Facts are sacred, Opinion is free” (of course, I could equally make a case as easily for the other way around - and didn’t Henry Ford also say: “history is bunk”!) Unfortunately it does not help that my own experience with the bishopric/ ruling section of the EGC has not been one which greatly encourages me to eulogise, and from a personally viewpoint I cannot see any great harm would happen if the whole shebang were to disappear forever. But that’s my personal opinion; other people may get a kick from it (somehow!)
Nobody in the last twenty odd years has (dared to) bring these matters to a wider attention as far as I can see though, and poor old Rusty is now forgotten & no longer with us (he wasn’t actually with us in 1996 when I wrote it!), which is why I thought they might do with a bit of advance notification & particularly with regard to the “totalitarianism of belief” held by the leader advanced by myself in connection with various threads.
I guess an organization needs less bishops and more congregants 🙂
I don’t think there’s any overabundance of bishops now though, as they have to be at least VII[sup:1ifexl9x]o[/sup:1ifexl9x] in the C.O.T.O. and there are not too many of those (have they released any figures lately?). Nice to know things are more “tightly controlled” now, though, don’tcha think?!
*Thinks*: Strewth, lucky I haven’t yet posted my pieces on the C.[‘Caliphornian’] .O.T.O.!
Knocking back the grape juice,
N. Joy
Jamie, I have to say that I found William's wit to be both wonderfully succinct and pertinent. Seems to have hit home too.
I do sometimes find it hard to judge when you are being serious, or when you are taking the piss out of yourself, or when you are taking the piss out of us ? Most of the time, you are so incorrigibly prolific that I just cannot be bothered to try sorting out the conundrum.
Jamie, I have to say that I found William's wit to be both wonderfully succinct and pertinent. Seems to have hit home too.
I do sometimes find it hard to judge when you are being serious, or when you are taking the piss out of yourself, or when you are taking the piss out of us ? Most of the time, you are so incorrigibly prolific that I just cannot be bothered to try sorting out the conundrum.
I read a couple books by a writer from the UK, died a few years back, that could be described in very similar terms, on all counts.
What was that fellow's name?
It might well have been Gerald Suster, I believe, ignant666.
Hopefully, it was not 'Amado Crowley'.....
No, who was it, incredibly prolific, hard to tell when he was taking the piss, interest in occult topics etc, I think you may have the initials right, maybe, or even the last name on that last one?
Gods, a failing memory is the curse of old age...
Anyway, some forgotten has-been, surely unworthy of mention on the site of the ACS.
Jamie, I have to say that I found William's wit to be both wonderfully succinct and pertinent.
You wouldn’t by any chance be a member of the E.G.C., would you? Some sort of priestly prelate of the type I described. That might account for your own tone! However if you are, as it appears, Typhonian-affiliated, this is probably not the case. 'Twas either that, or else you may be a professional pot-stirrer! Fair enough; I occasionally do a spot of that myself. I thought I had already gone into the (non)matter of the non sour grapes. Sour grapes would only be accurate if it had been the case that I’d applied, and then been refused, to have become an officer in the EGC. Rather the reverse happened. When talk was going round about ‘properly’ organizing & setting up the EGC in the UK I was asked if I would be interested in ever ‘playing a bishop’ (this was before the VII[sup:m4cmeyna]o[/sup:m4cmeyna] rule came in, btw). Playing was the correct word to choose, and I could see no point in wasting my time on it & refused to have anything further to do with it.
My interest here, as I have stated, is as a historian. I do not have a personal axe to grind, believe it or not. It is possible a slightly negative tone may percolate, but that is because I have found nothing to eulogise about. If you (or anybody) would care to inform me of evidence to the contrary, I would be delighted to assimilate it and allow it to inform my outlook.
As for the above, I found it in itself amusing when you wrote the above. Surely it’s not that difficult to discriminate between the three of them? D’you think I should adopt a smiley emoticon to distinguish between each of the three usages? (A little secret, I have sufficient respect for Paul’s website & its users as a whole - and I mean that sincerely - that I very rarely engage in number 3; number 2 is far more likely.) I am not the supreme piss-taker, however; that accolade must possibly go to Kenneth Grant (see “Membership Do or Die” thread)? About “when I am being serious”: well, that’s really for me to know & you to deduce, mon ami! It shouldn’t really be that difficult. Might it help if I was to say I was stoned half of the time I have posted anything? (Needless to say *I’m not!*) Or that I may be serious more than you think!? Work it out. As for “incorrigibly prolific”, I might just be going through a phase. You never know, you might not hear of me again for years afterwards, I’m not really a public sort of person. Plus I would certainly not linger where I was not wanted or appreciated at least a little bit!...
I am aware my posting “style” may well not be to everyone’s taste. That’s tough! As long as Paul doesn’t have a problem with it, those who don’t like it can go take the proverbial flying flip at the moon. I did not start posting on Lashtal to enter a popularity contest; if only a handful of people ‘get’ whether I’m coming from, including my rather idiosyncratic, dare I say even Crowleyesque, sense of humour, that will more than satisfy me. The universe is a joke anyway, as A.C. has constantly averred, at the expense of the particular by the general.
Gods, a failing memory is the curse of old age...
Anyway, some forgotten has-been, surely unworthy of mention on the site of the ACS.
I’m afraid I have no idea who you can be referring to; Gerald Suster was never particularly “incredibly prolific” except when he had a deadline and maybe later on, with his literature concerning Thelemic erotica with which he had to pay the bills 😉
Cudgeling my brains for a suitably ‘serious’ sign-off for you all,
N. Joy
In deference to another current topic:
Man has the right to think what he will:
to speak what he will:
to write what he will:
Merely reciprocating those rights, Jamie; the expression of a personal oppinion is not the same as a licence for censure.
As for that writer whom ignant666 had in mind, might it possibly be the late John Michell, author of the legendary 'The View over Atlantis' and so much more of Ancient, and/or Fortean information ?
Regards - S.A.
Man has the right to think what he will:
to speak what he will:
to write what he will:
Merely reciprocating those rights, Jamie; the expression of a personal opinion is not the same as a licence for censure.
Fine by me, reciprocate away! Fortunately I am not one of those prickly souls who get ‘sensitive’ whenever Liber Oz is quoted at them. I've always found it interesting that the “…right to read what he will:” is not included, incidentally. Maybe it might have disrupted the poetic-scansion effect of the triple lines; maybe A.C. found he just couldn’t include everything & thought that that one would be included by implication and therefore not need any special attention. But then again, maybe he specifically didn’t want to include "read" in as well, for some particular reason…?
I wasn’t quite clear who was meant by the reference to ‘licence for censure’ – you or me doing it here? (Or conceivably both, if reciprocal?) Should you just be alluding to myself, though, I don’t think my remarks were/ are strong enough to be interpreted as ‘censure’, although as I have noted, my tone was not - how you say? “enthusiastic”! Equally, though, I stated that I was prepared to revise the tone in the event of incoming information coming through of a positive nature (testimonials, confessions, etc), so I don’t think this betokens a closed mind on my part on the subject.
I don’t know if it could be John Michell or not; certainly he was fairly prolific although I don’t know about the adjective incredibly, but, if so, I can’t agree with the ‘judgement’ in Reply #11 that he deserves a posthumous obscurity and was “some forgotten has-been, surely unworthy of mention” on this website, in view of the overall general high quality of his oeuvre (imho).
Thanking you for your contribution, Satan's,
N. Joy
What was that fellow's name?
Gods, a failing memory is the curse of old age...
Anyway, some forgotten has-been, surely unworthy of mention on the site of the ACS.
Surely, ignant666 was "taking the piss" and referring to Aleister Crowley!?!
N.O.X.: By Jove Sir, I think you've got it!
I found it rather ironic that JB would be criticized on these particular terms on the site of the Aleister Crowley Society.
Did some people really "not get" ignant666's gentle leg-pull?
It was almost literally spelt out (hint, Reply #11)
*headsplode*
Yes, I got it – or thought I might have got it, at the time. The trouble is, though, one can never actually be sure if irony is intended or not, particularly on Lashtal sometimes, and there is always the possibility of secondary or even tertiary interpretations. Sigh! I suppose the fault can partly be laid at my own door in maybe not making things sufficiently clear myself. What’s to be done? Is excessive & extensive use of the emoticon to be called for, e.g., for when one is being sarcastic or literal or metaphorical or? And what about two at the same time together?
On the lookout for double, treble (and quadruple) meanings (& in the process getting a headache!),
🙂 😉 😀 ;D 😮 8) ??? ::) :- :-* :'(
N. Joy
Once again, the irony flows deep, as devotees of the writings of the author of The Book of Lies complain of multiple layers of irony! (except I am confident JB "protests too much", as the kids say, and as indicated by the "smilies")
I apologize for my small attempt at humor having temporarily waylaid what I thought was a quite interesting discussion about EGC.
As the last initiatory organization I joined was the the Boy Scouts of America, I have little to contribute here & will attempt to be quiet now.
It was almost literally spelt out (hint, Reply #11)
*headsplode*
No, I will freely confess to being very slow on the uptake here: it does happen sometimes. Having expressed my appreciation of one individual's wit, that of ignant666 simply eluded me. Serves me bloodywell right, I suppose. Couldn't see the wood for the stunted trees.
It is now over one revolution of the moon since my (last) posting and nobody has responded to my query below with some ‘positive’ feedback to counteract the somewhat ‘negative’ evidence shown.
Nevertheless I would be glad of any feedback, corrections to any historical/ factual data or indeed relevant further information relating to it (by confidential PM if necessary), which, even though it will not be published in due course until some time after 2017, needs an update from the c. the mid-90s up to until least the present day.
Perhaps now that the general ribaldry which has taken up almost the whole of Replies #9 thru’ #20 has somewhat abated, it may now be possible to return to the basics.
I realise, naturally, that perhaps not enough time has elapsed. Time is one thing there is plenty of (at the moment!) as far as this is concerned, as any updating/ revision is not likely to occur for some while yet. Still, the groundwork can be laid, and if (as apparently some wish to see) there is some sort of a sea-change in my orientation, the suitable evidence has to be forthcoming & furthermore sustainable to any future investigation. It is possible that those with such evidence have not posted yet, although it may be increasingly unlikely they will do so in the future unless maybe they are researching or particularly interested in the issue, which was why I have made the thread title as embracing & universal but as relevant & particular to the subject as possible.
For example, there must be at least some ‘dignitaries’ within the current E.G.C. who do not ‘ponce around in regalia’, who find it is a worthwhile endeavour, and would ask others to feel the same way or at least acknowledge the validity of their position. I would even be interested in reading from anyone who may consider themselves to belong to the E.G.C. but who are not from this dispensation within the C.O.T.O.
Incidentally, I would lay significant odds on not hearing from the current Patriarch on this matter – he really will be Tau Silenus, or “silent on the material plane” here – not quite so much as betting on the odds of the sudden reappearance of Elvis as an elderly shelf-stacker in 7-11, but not far off.
Believe me, I would like to present a more rounded analysis of the phenomenon, if such is achievable. My intention is not to (unnecessarily) cause trouble but to present the ‘truth’, so far as that is possible. Really I think my would-be authorial stance is extraordinarily broad minded and magnanimous to the clergy, considering: viz., that I am prepared to rewrite and reassess my apparently quite conclusive findings under the circumstances. – I could similarly appeal for further evidence here to damn it (the E.G.C.) further, but recognise that I may probably not make myself very popular in the process. Tant pis, though! But, I won’t.
However should someone wish to whitewash, one’s efforts therein should not be wishy-washy nor should their whites be less than ‘whiter than white’ – no outstanding stains (white or otherwise) or skid marks revealing {For some reason I am put in mind of the late President Nixon’s classic side splitting poker-faced imperative denial on tv just before his impeachment/ resignation: “There is no white wash…at the white house”}.
What I would also like to do would be to send out an appeal for any further information corroborating or contradicting my earlier contention as outlined:
As a measure of its effectiveness, Crowley seems to have neither performed in nor attended the Gnostic Mass at any time since his Abbey of Thelema at Cefalù in the early 1920s - if then. It is in fact arguable whether Crowley actually participated in, or was present, at any full performance of the Gnostic Mass during his entire lifetime. Quite possibly he found other more effective ways of employing his time.
That is,
a) did A.C. ever attend a full Gnostic Mass in his lifetime;
b) was one ever performed before Wilfred Smith’s in the Agape Lodge; and apart from c) listed below, were these the only other type of Gnostic Mass to be performed anywhere in Crowley’s lifetime;
c) does anyone have any details of the type of Gnostic Mass and how frequently it was actually apparently performed while A.C. was at Cefalù? It is hardly likely to have been a full performance at which all (or even most) of the paraphernalia would be present, but there would at least be two ‘Children’ on hand, i.e. Hermes and Dionysus, at one time.
At the moment, the answers would appear to be a) no, b) no, and c) no. Also,
d) was A.C. himself ever “officially” created the Head or Patriarch or whatever of the E.G.C.? If so, by whom, who did he succeed, and what is the evidence for this. Come to that, what is the evidence for him having been a Bishop, Wandering or otherwise?
And I might also add
e) is there in fact any room for an ‘occult priesthood’ in Thelema today?
which could even serve as a sub-topic for this thread.
Many thanks for any sign of the above gnews,
gN. Joy
gnominally in the gname of the Gnosis, gnaturally
I cannot answer your other questions, but AC "officially" made himself head of all the organizations he used. Be it A.'.A.'. or OTO, so it will maybe also be true for EGC. At least we know AC was an initiate of the former two bodies (through his GD membership, and being head of the British OTO). So I assume he was also a bishop, wandering or else, in some (obscure?) branch of EGC. And even if not. What difference does it make? AC was the prophet of the new aeon, and that was all the authority he needed to make himself head of all the orgs he used. Being a thelemite, I kind of agree 😉
Perhaps the answers to your questions can be found here:
Tobias Churton, Aleister Crowley: The Biography. Page 182-183.
Thank you, terra_trema, fraternovaeres and N.O.X, for your helpful suggestions and comments. (I have actually consulted with Peter König in the previous century on the subject, and I should mention he was most helpful & hospitable to me when I went to stay with him and review his extensive archive in Zürich. Ditto with the whole matter of the O.T.O. “Phenomenon” in its entirety, in fact…)
N. Joy
I don’t think I need to be madame zaza in the clairvoyant stakes to know that someone is likely to berate me for the crime of “bumping the post” (and that that person’s initial might probably begin with, oooh, the letter…S?)
However, please allow me to explain my reasons for such seeming impolitesse.
For one thing, there have been posts on another thread (“Do Not Eat the Cakes of Light” (in CAPS, for added emphasis) relating to the ‘ethics’ of burning the Cakes of Light before consumption, the ramifications of which could be treated further here along with people’s perceptions (pro and con) the Gnostic Mass as whole, as I’m not sure if there has been a previous thread devoted to this topic? There are also possibly the outstanding considerations of (a), (b), (c), (d) & (e) listed above.
I’ve left it approx. 3 months in line with it being a season of the Sun and all that... and getting on for the Lash marker of 120 days before enquiring further here, but I will not be coming by this way again unless there is fresh blood.
During that time it has been the case that no one’s rallied round or sallied forth to defend the honour of the E.G.C. And while it’s possible that no one with an interest is interested in responding, the implication is that there is no interest & nobody – whether a member of the E.G.C. or not – wishes to feed back to correct my unfavourable perception of the phenomenon involved.
Once more, then, I declare that I’ve tried to be reasonable and fair in both my account and my approach, and would weigh any evidence similarly & discriminate only in accordance with the interests of factual historical judgement and accuracy.
I will also declare, though, that I’m not at all impressed by the idea of a separate organization (albeit one also under the autocratic control of the head of the [C.]O.T.O.) run along pseudo-Roman Catholic lines with respect to the performance of the [Gnostic] Mass. Those of a religious bent or inclined to enjoy psychodramatics (such as I do myself on occasion) & wishing to put on such a celebration [of the GM] should, consequently, be entirely free to do so in the spirit of Thelema without any interference on the part of a monopolistic ecclesiastical hierarchy and administrative body. However this is evidently not the case at the present time.
Nor am I inclined (and even less so with the passing of years) towards the idea of any form of ‘occult priesthood’ – if for no other reason than that it encourages a repulsive & repugnant sort of holier-than-thou poncing about in robes, vestments and churchy regalia. The whole idea is distinctly Old Æon and anathema to the New. I therefore find the actuality of a Thelemic ‘Bishop’ a contradiction in terms and rather laughable when it is not being tragic (or maybe that should be tragic when it is not being laughable?)
Irrespective of the above, though, I am receptively open to change – if anyone is able to persuade me of the merits involved. A genuine sincere and heartfelt setting-forth of matters would be more likely to carry weight than any well thought out and factually detailed exposition hoping to justify the established status quo. Similarly, though, I would also be equally interested in receiving any further instances of information regarding active examples of restriction and repression in the activities of the E.G.C. as previously mentioned. By PM to me in confidence, if preferred.
Therefore there’s no limit involved for anyone who might wish to make such a case – but if I don’t receive any by the time I come to revise and insert the relevant chapter in the book concerned, I will be very much inclined to
“Let it stand” -
N Joy.
{PS, Not that it will affect the long-term considerations, but I am going to be ‘offline’ for a few days in the short-term & so unwilling to immediately respond to replies - assuming there are any!}