2,000 Greater & Lesser Mysteries/2,000 Greater and Lesser Mysteries.iso/templars/mys01947.txt

Text File | 1994-06-10 | 5.7 KB | 93 lines

GNOSTICS AND TEMPLARS

In the last issue of the Gnostic Gnews we read some notes by Bp. Bill
Heidrick on the history of the Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica. Since this
sort of article is exactly what I would like to see more of in the pages
of the Gnews I decided to pipe up with some results of my own researches
and, as is my notorious wont, a few controversial comments on history
and organizational management. These are all the personal opinions of
one Bishop. I challenge you to reject my dogmas just as fiercely as I
reject the dogmas of others!

Bill has already described the development of the Gnostic Catholic
Church out of the Old Catholic "Wandering" Episcopate; more details of
which may be found in Peter F. Anson's Bishops at Large. He has also
effectively described the organization of the now-moribund non-profit
corporation Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica. So I shall concentrate on two
other areas: firstly, the historical connection between the O.T.O. and
the Gnostic Catholic Church; secondly, the current state of their
organizational integration.

In Crowley's 1912 c.e. manifesto for his Mysteria Mystica Maxima lodge
of O.T.O. there is an explicit claim to possess within the Order "the
wisdom and the knowledge of" the Gnostic Catholic Church. Around this
same time Crowley wrote his own version of the Gnostic Mass. Clearly, he
believed himself possessed of episcopal authority. Theodor Reuss, the
actual founder of the Ordo Templi Orientis proper, claimed in 1918 c.e.
the title "Sovereign Patriarch and Primate of the Gnostic Church" (see
the article "Theodor Reuss; Irregular Freemasonry in Germany, 1900-23"
by Howe and Moller in Transactions of Quatuor Coronati Lodge, Feb. 16,
1978. Unfortunately, to my knowledge, no documentation of either
Crowley's or Reuss' consecrations has ever been published, so I can
offer no certain idea of the transmission of the Gnostic Catholic
lineage to the O.T.O. through Reuss and Crowley. Both men were in
correspondence with Gerard Encausse (Papus) and may have received
episcopal recognition from him before his death in 1916 c.e.; in
addition, Reuss was in touch with an associate of Encausse's, Jean
Bricaud, who may have served as an avenue of consecration. Should this
perhaps dubious route of transmission raise any worries among Order
members over the legitimacy of our present claims to Gnostic Catholic
episcopacy, we can reassure them, since the current acting-Outer Head of
the Order claims a documented apostolic succession on his own account
and is able if it were necessary, by his own recognition, to regularize
all the consecrations of his predecessors.

The ecclesiatical situation created by the current O.T.O. Bylaws (see
the first issue of Gnostic Gnews) is very open to and respectful of the
diversity that is a hallmark of the Wandering Episcopate. Article IX
recognizes the independent nature of different lines of apostolic
succession while rightfully asserting the Order's claim to a valid
lineage of such succession; it also provides a framework for cooperation
between the Order's Bishops while carefully avoiding the imposition of
any dogmatic rules upon them. By setting up such an open relationship
between the Church and the Order the bylaws provide a great many
opportunities for the Bishops themselves to control the development of
their own working relationships, with the members of their own local
church and with the rest of the episcopate. Conditions vary greatly for
Bishops, from the places where one lone apostle administers the only
church within 500 miles to the areas where one sanctuary can call on any
of half-a- dozen Bishops to officiate. In either situation I suggest
that Bishops consider taking advantage of the provisions of Article IX's
Section 9.04C to legally register their local churches. The possible
advantages of registration are the ability to perform recognized
marriages, to coordinate banking and fundraising, to sign leases or buy
property, just to name a few. The disavantages are registration fees,
obligatory record-keeping, and the fearsome twin djinni, al-Daghmuh &
al-Burakrat. If you decide to put the time and effort into getting legal
recognition for your church you will then be faced with all sorts of
structural questions. Fortunately the requirement that your local bylaws
be reviewed by the National Supreme Council means that you will receive
the benefit of the Order's experience in such legal registrations to
help you avoid technical pitfalls, but 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.

It seems clear to me that our current Patriarch is adopting the role of
'primus inter pares' rather than 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. In the Gnostic
Gnews we have a new opportunity to share the fruits of our experiences
with each other. I encourage all Bishops and official O.T.O. bodies who
have ideas or tips about any aspect of the Church to submit them to this
publication, either by mail or in electronic form on ThelemaNet (if it
is more convenient for you to use BaphoNet or TahutiNet be sure to let
the sysop know that you want your file echoed to ThelemaNet).