In the last issue of the Gnostic Gnews we read some comments
written by Bishop 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 Gnostic 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 organal
integration.
In Crowley's 1912 c.e. Manifesto for his Mysteria Mystica Maxima
Lodge of O.T.O. there is an explicit claim 20 20to 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 Chur e 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 receive
d 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 r on 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 a ny of
half-a-dozen Bishops to officia 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 possible registration fees, some
obligatory record-keeping, and those fearsome twin djinni,
al-Daghmuh & al Burakrat. These latter two may be hed by the
frequent application of Tolerance & Humor. 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 procedural
questions. Fortunately the requirement that your local
registrations be reviewed by the National Supreme Council means
that you will receive the benefit of the Order's experience to
help you avoid technical pitfalls, but for the most part the
Bishop (s) who form(s) a local church must make the decisions
abou 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 ics within their "territory".
It seems clear to me that our current Patriarch is adopting an ecclesiastical 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.
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). (Please also leave a note to RUSTY SPORER telling him the name and nature of your "fruits of experience" - or any other article - and a really brief summary of the file. Use AREA 93! - Ed.)
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION
(The Holy Father, Hymenaeus Beta, has furnished the following lines of
succession which apply to his own line. There are two distinct lines
which stream from his hands. These lines find a parallel in the line
which flowed through the first Caliph, Grady McMurtry, Hymenaeus Alpha
and to our current Caliph, Hymenaeus Beta. Most EGC Bishops are
included in one or both of these lines.)
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION -
(Line 1)
1909 - Bishop Gerard Encausse (Papus) consecrated Msgr. Theodor Reuss.
