[Preface July 2000: It may be useful to mention that this Position
Paper was published nearly 20 years ago and it does not take - (of
course) - into account any later alleged or real consecrations, such as
for instance Jorge Rodriguez to David Scriven, O.T.O.]
(Preface to the first
version: "This position paper is issued privately for the information of
the clergy and selected laity of the Ecclesia Gnostica. It is not for
general distribution or publication. Recipients of this paper are
requested to exercise the utmost discretion and caution in making the
same available to others, which should be done only in cases when the
position of the Ecclesia Gnostica versus the Thelemite or Crowleyan
groups must be clarified as a matter of practical
necessity.)"
Permission for the on-line version (which follows the integral
original private distribution) by Stephan Hoeller, July 10, 2000. Some
few notes by P.R. Koenig in [square brackets]
The Need for the Present Paper
As is evident to most observers of contemporary esoterica, the Sixties
and Seventies has brought about a revival and public appearance of
several organizations which endorse the teachings of the late Aleister
Crowley and which allegedly trace their authority and successions back
to the organization which he once headed in the English speaking lands,
namely the O.T.O. (Ordo Templi Orientis) and its associated bodies.
Among the latter frequent mention is made of an Ecclesia Gnostica
Catholica (Gnostic Catholic Church) which functions as an adjunct of sorts to other organizations following in
the footsteps of Aleister Crowley, such as the O.T.O. and the A\A\
(Argentinum Astrum).
Some fifteen years after the onset of the esoteric revival there has
also come about a modest Gnostic revival, heralded by the publication
in English of the famed Nag Hammadi documents in 1977, followed by the
publicaton of the popular book The Gnostic Gospels by Professor
Elaine Pagels in 1979, and to be followed most certainly by other
books. After having been known as a "faith forgotten" for many
centuries, the Gnosis and Gnosticism are once more becoming the subject
of interest not only to academic experts but to the inquiring public at
large. As one might expect under such circumstances, a variety of
groups are springing up (or rather are expected to spring up) who will
all use the word "Gnostic" to characterize their teachings and
practices. This development in turn will cause a certain amount of
confusion in the public mind and will make it incumbent upon
representatives of Gnostic organizations to distinguish their efforts
from those of others.
The effort represented by our Ecclesia Gnostica and its secular arm,
the Gnostic Society is one of the oldest, if indeed not the oldest on
the American continent. Founded in 1928, the Gnostic Society has
labored in a variety of ways for over half a century for the Gnosis.
Although the Ecclesia Gnostica was not openly attached to this effort
until much later, its distinguished ancestry among the French Gnostic
churches places it equally into a category of established stability and
antiquity. The effort represented by our Ecclesia and Society was given
recent public recognition in a paper presented by Dr. Robert S. Ellwood
Jr., Professor of Religion at the University of Southern California at
a prestigious conference at Yale University which was convened to
celebrate the publication of the Nag Hammadi texts. It is interesting
to note for our purposes that Prof. Ellwood mentioned our particular
effort along with only one other movement (the Association Gnostica in
Latin America) as directly Gnostic, while he mentioned the Golden Dawn
and the O.T.O. of Aleister Crowley as being merely inspired by "the
alternative western spirituality veiled in ... several garments". (For
further details see Modern Meanings for Gnosticism, address by
Robert S. Ellwood, Jr., Yale University, March 1987.)
In contradistinction to the efforts of the Ecclesia and of the Gnostic
Society, some movements using the name "Gnostic" are of recent origin
and belong primarily to the alternative western spirituality above
referred to by Prof. Ellwood rather than to the tradition of classical
Gnosticism which is embodied in the ancient Gnostic scriptures and
sacraments. Thus we find an increasing number of groups in the Spanish
speaking community wich are subsumed under the name of the Gnostic Christian Universal Movement, and which seem to be an off shoot of the
Associación Gnostica mentioned by Prof. Ellwood as existing in Latin
America. (This movement uses the pentagram designed by Eliphas Lévi as
its identifying symbol, and its principal inspiration seems to be a
mysterious "Master Samael Aun Weor". The members appear to have only a
tangential knowledge of the classical Gnostic scriptures and
traditions.) By far the most ubiquitous use of the description
"Gnostic" appears, however, among the numerous revival movements of the
O.T.O.
From time to time one hears of O.T.O. members celebrating what is
advertised as a "Gnostic Catholic Mass", as well as of priests and
priestesses who claim "valid" ordinations at the hands of bishops in
the "Gnostic Catholic Church" of the O.T.O. Upon visiting one of the
above mentioned "Gnostic Catholic Masses" persons find that the
ceremony is totally different from the Eucharist or Mass celebrated by
our Ecclesia, and upon further investigation they may find numerous
other puzzling differences also. It is high time therefore that some
clarificatory statement should be forthcoming which might state the
position of the Ecclesia Gnostica regarding such activities.
Lest the intentions motivating the writer of this paper be
misunderstood it is necessary to mention one more important detail. In
our view there is no single definition of Gnosticism and even less of
Gnosis. We have no desire to stand in judgement over persons or groups
and presume to pontificate about whether they are "genuine Gnostics" or
not. All available evidence indicates that the ancient Gnostics were
extremely pluralistic and creative in their attitudes toward the
modalities they adopted for their spiritual transformation. Going even
further we might say that Gnosticism is a tendency or attitude of the
psyche rather than a doctrine or a fixed system of practice. It is our
hope that as the present Gnostic revival expands there will be many
diverse groups of a Gnostic orientation, and we hope to be one of
these. By the same token we are also aware of our obligation to the
specific Gnostic traditions of which we are the consecrated custodians.
This makes it incumbent upon us to declare in clear and unambiguous
terms where our practice and teaching differs from others who for
reasons of their own have rightly or wrongly adopted the name "Gnostic"
to describe their activities. While Gnosticism cannot be rigidly
defined, this does not mean that everything is Gnosticism; neither does
it mean that our Ecclesia ought to blandly and indifferently acceed to
every teaching and activity that adopts the Gnostic name.
Differentiation and discernment are some of the marks of consciousness
and therefore of Gnosis. We sincerely hope however, that our
statements made for the purpose of information and containing
discriminating ideas will not be mistaken for manifestations of
judgemental or hostile attitudes.
Whence Cometh the Thelemite Church ?
In order to attain to some clarity regarding the issue under
consideration, a brief survey of the Thelemite or Crowleyan movement
needs to be presented. Edward Aleister Crowley (1875-1947) was a noted
student of and writer on subjects of Kabbalistic, Theurgical and
Hermetic interest. He was also a poet, mountain climber, painter and
bon-vivant. What he was not was a clergyman of whatsoever stripe, least
of all a Christian clergyman, even if the term Christian should be
modified by the adjective "Gnostic". While he delighted in the names,
such as the "Beast 666", he appears to have been a fairly harmless
Victorian-Edwardian eccentric. It is more than likely that today he
would pass as a somewhat pompous, but otherwise not out-of-the-ordinary
member of the swinging set. In fact his "evil acts" might appear less
than unspectacular in some of the more avant-garde enclaves such as
Marin County or the Malibou Colony. Crowley's main preoccupation was
Theurgy, which he learned on the knees (- and at times in the sexual
embraces -) of various adepti of the order of the Golden Dawn, which
was the chief academy of theurgical matters at the turn of the Century
and for a while therafter. The brash young Crowley soon parted company
with the magicians of the Golden Dawn and turned his gaze toward other
objectives. Among these was a German quasi-Masonic organization, known
as the Ordo Templi Orientis (Order of Eastern Templars), founded around
1896 by a German industrialist named Karl Kellner [correction], who
travelled in India and through the Middle East, and who was romantically excited by the mysterious image
of the Knights Templar, who, were accused by their inquisitorial
murderers not only of heresy, but of ritualised sexual practices.
Karl Kellner's order attracted but a small number of German
intellectuals of occult leanings, among whom was the noted Theosophist
Franz Hartmann as well as a certain Theodor Reuss, who succeeded the founder as head of the O.T.O. It was this Theodor Reuss
who in 1911 [1910] admitted the young Aleister Crowley into his order
and subsequently [in 1912] appointed him the head of that order for the
English speaking countries [in Europe], which, - at least on paper -,
he remained until his death in 1947 [Crowley was expelled in 1921]. The
O.T.O. was a Masonic organization, having derived its Masonic
successions from an eccentric English Masonic official, John Yarker, who by some obscure means managed to
obtain authority to confer the degrees of three different Masonic
rites. (The Scottish Rite, the Rite of Memphis, and the Rite of
Misraim). The O.T.O. experienced a modest expansion under the
leadership of Reuss and came to be divided into several autonomous
national sections, such as the Mysteria Mystica
Veritas in Switzerland, the Mysteria Mystica
Aeterna in Berlin (under the leadership of Dr. Rudolf Steiner) and
last not least, the Mysteria Mystica
Maxima in England under the leadership of Aleister Crowley.
The O.T.O. had no pretension along ecclesiastical lines for quite some
time. Such claims as exist of this kind developed primarily as the
result of a rather tenuous association with the O.T.O. and with the
noted leader of the Martinist Order, the French occultist Papus also
known secuarly as Dr. Gérard Encausse (1865-1916). Papus became the
recipient of two apostolic successions of expressed Gnostic character.
The first of these came to him by way of a consecration as bishop which
he received (together with his friends Paul Sédir and Lucien Chamuél)
at the hands of bishop Jules Doinles, patriarch of the Église Gnostique
Universelle. The date of this consecration is obscure, as indeed are
the sources of the holy orders of bishop Doinel, (known under his
patriarchal title as Tau Valentin II). It is reported that his was a
spiritual consecration possibly without any demonstrable historic
continuity with apostolic sources.
Papus also became a bishop for the second time, probably about 1913,
this time at the hands of bishop Jean Bricaud (1881-1934), known under
the ecclesiastical name of Tau Jean II. Bishop Bricaud was consecrated
to the episcopate on July 21, 1913 by bishop Louis-Marie-François
Giraud, who was ordained and consecrated with complete regularity (from
the Catholic point of view) by a bishop of the Vilatte succession. (In
fact Giraud was ordained priest by the noted archbishop Vilatte himself
in 1907, and elevated to the episcopate in 1911 by the Gnostic bishop
Jules Hussaye, who in turn received his episcopate from bishop Paolo
Miraglia-Galotti who was consecreated bishop by archbishop Vilatte).
All of this needs to be mentioned in order to indicate that Papus was a
validly consecrated catholic bishop of Gnostic belief since 1913, and
that he was also a Gnostic bishop of Gnostic belief since 1913, and
that he was also a Gnostic bishop of far more dubious validity in the
catholic sense since sometime prior to that date.
The claim of various followers of Crowley is that Theodor Reuss, the
head of the O.T.O., received the initiatic succession of the Ecclesia
Gnostica Catholica from Papus in 1909, along with all the other
successions of the Martinist order which Papus possessed. It is also
asserted by some that Reuss in turn passed on these Martinist
successions, including the Gnostic Catholic episcopate to Aleister
Crowley in 1912, and thus that Crowley was indeed a duly consecrated
bishop. It is further assumed (although not frequently stated
explicitly) that Crowley passed on this ecclesiastical succession to
others within his branch of the O.T.O. and that thus today there are
valid bishops within the revival movements of the O.T.O. and within its
ancillary activity known as the Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica.
In brief outline form these seem to be the claims upon which various
persons base their contention that within the Crowleyan or Thelemite
bodies some sacramental activities can be carried out which are in fact
valid in the catholic sense because they are administered by priests,
priestesses and deacons who are validly ordained by true
bishops.
A Critique of Thelemite Orders
One of the most glaring contradictions in connection with the above
claims may be found in Crowley's own attitude. A quotation from the pen
of Francis King, a contemporary authority on Crowley may be useful
here:
... when Crowley visited Reuss in Berlin and had conferred upon himself
the chieftainship of the British section of the O.T.O., he was also
consecrated as a Gnostic Catholic bishop - or so Reuss claimed.
Crowley, however, does not appear to have been aware of his new
status; certainly he never made any attempt to exercise his
ecclesiastical functions [wrong: see W.B. Crow],
although, it is true, he did write a special Mass for the Gnostic
Church. (Italics by Stephan Hoeller. Francis King: Man, Myth &
Magick, ed. Cavendish).
Indeed, as far as one can discern, Crowley's only act that related to
anything even remotely ecclesiastical is his writing of the Liber XV
O.T.O. Ecclesiae Gnosticae Canon Missae, of which more shall be said
later. When perusing Crowley's voluminous Opus of many volumes, nowhere
does one find any indication of his interest in or knowledge of the
sacraments, the mythos and ethos of the historic Christian church. He
frequently uses (some would say misuses and abuses) the technical terms
of the sacraments, associating them with sexual matters, but that is about all.
In the following we shall undertake a systematic, point by point
examination of the features of the claims of the Crowleyan succession
which seem doubtful to us:
(1) Crowley seems never to have used the Papus successions at all if
he ever received them in the first place. Crowley only operated two
orders: the O.T.O. which he received from Germany, and the A\A\
which he took from the Golden Dawn. At the time Crowley received his
authorities from Reuss, the Gnostic Catholic Church had merged or was
about to merge with the Martinist Order, in such a manner that they
no longer functioned separately. There is no reason to suppose that
Reuss or Crowley would have gone contrary to the rules established by
Papus and separated this church from the Martinist context.
(2) Neither Papus nor Crowley had a valid apostolic succession to
pass on because they had none in the first place. Reuss is said to
have received the succession from Papus in 1909. Papus only received
the unquestionably valid succession from Bricaud after July 1913, this
being the date of Bricaud's own consecration. Thus in 1909 Papus may or
may not have been a valid bishop depending on wheter he did or did not
receive the Doinel succession by this time and (b) whether one is
justified in accepting the Doinel succession is valid. The only
succession possessed by Papus which one must accept as valid, however,
he simply did not have to confer on Reuss in 1909.
(3) Assuming that Papus had a valid succession to hand on in 1909,
which is assuming too much -, the succession may not have passed on to
Reuss owing lack of proper intention. Proper intention in the
ecclesiasitcal sense implies that in consecrating an other bishop the
consecrator intends to do as the church has always done under such
circumstances. The passing on of the Martinist and associated grades
and initiations was a pro-forma honorary gesture on the part of Papus,
given in exchange for a similar honorary confering of O.T.O. degrees on
himself by Reuss. This sort of thing is customary among heads of
initiatory orders who recognize each other in a fraternal manner, but
it is a little more than a friendly formality. (A famous and
controversial analogous event being the exchange of honorary grades in
a like manner by Aleister Crowley and H.
Spencer Lewis of the A.M.O.R.C.) While there may be honorary
degrees of Masonic orders conferred at a distance or "on sight", this
cannot be done in an ecclesiastical succession. Thus even if Papus may
have wished to pass on some kind of an ecclesiastical succession to
Reuss, the manner of conferring it would have been enough to render it
very suspect indeed.
(4) There is nor proof that either Reuss or Crowley were technically
capable of receiving a valid catholic episcopate. In order to be
consecrated a bishop, a person must be validly baptized, confirmed, and
ordained a priest and deacon. Were these prerequisites fullfilled in
the case of Reuss? Were they in the case of Crowley? If not, they were
not capable of receiving a valid episcopate even if the consecrator
possessed a valid succession and held the proper intention.
(5) Reuss probably and Crowley almost certainly could not pass on
any valid succession they received because they lacked proper
intention. Reuss was a Mason with little or no knowledge of
catholic practice, and Crowley was a passionate neo-pagan without any
shred of sympathy for the catholic sacramental mythos even in its most
esoteric aspect.
(6) Provided that claims should be raised to a succession descending
from Papus through Reuss and through Crowley to various O.T.O. bishops,
such bishops themselves could probably not pass on an apostolic
succession in a valid manner for lack of proper intention. The
leading members of O.T.O. organizations as a rule are so out of touch
with even the rudiments of the catholic tradition that it is highly
unlikely that their actions could be accepted as conforming to the
doctrine of intention even in its most liberal and esoteric sense.
Present-day representatives of the O.T.O. tradition at least in the
United States are woefully uneducated in all matters including those
ecclesiastical, and emotionally unstable to boot - at least in the
majority of instances. It would be too much to expect from most of
these ragtag subculture-magicians to know anything of proper intention,
not to speak of holding such an intention.
(7) Whatever valid stream and current of magic, ecclesiastical or
otherwise may have existed in the O.T.O. in Crowley's time is now
probably absent in the present O.T.O. offshoots, owing to their lack of
proper succession authority. Here a little insight into more recent
O.T.O. history may prove helpful. According to the late Louis T. Culling (Frater Aquila), a high-ranking member
of the O.T.O. as well as of its short-lived offshoot, the G.B.G., and a
long-time personal friend of this writer, the only person lawfully
entiteld to head the O.T.O. was Karl Johannes
Germer (1885-1962). This man, - of whom even the most rabid critics
cannot say much ill - became the Outer Head of the O.T.O. upon
Crowley's death as he was already somewhat the acting head during
Crowley's last years. According to reliable informants Karl Germer
named a man named Metzger (Frater Paragranus)
as his successor. Metzger resided in Switzerland and re-stablished the
O.T.O. in the German speaking countries in a most sensible and
respectable way. It would appear on the basis of this information that
all other existing O.T.O. groups (exclusive of that of Mr. Metzger,
Frater Paragranus) are without proper succession authority. The English
writer on Crowleyana, Kenneth
Grant, who claims to be Outer Head was expelled by Karl Germer from
the order on July 20 1955. An other alleged chief, Grady McMurtry of
California was indeed appointed by Crowley as his personal
representative in the United States and as the reformer of the order,
but only subject to the approval of Germer. Germer never approved, thus
McMurtry's position also evaporated in spite of his claims. Neither the
expelled member Grant, nor the unapproved representative McMurtry were
mentioned in Karl Germer's will. A Brazilian claiment named Motta has similarly failed to establish any valid
authority for his high-sounding titles in yet an other revival movement
of the O.T.O. Unlike in churches, where schisms do not invalidate
successorship, in the O.T.O. the magical current is said to go with the
lawful successorship, - at least so this writer was informed by the
late Luis T. Culling and other informed O.T.O. members. Perhaps this
factor may be held accountable for the stability and common sense of
Metzger's O.T.O. and for the lamentable ways of the other, less
legitimate bodies?
Thelemic Sacraments and Teachings
The only document available that pertains to the sacramental practice
of the Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica of the O.T.O. is the aforementioned
Mass written by Crowley himself. It is a curious text, poetic and
magical in nature, but having virtually nothing in common with a Mass
as understood by catholic tradition both orthodox and heretical. While
it cannot be thus said to be either a Mass or catholic, one may also
say that it has hearty little in it that could be called Gnostic
either, unless the frequent use of the mystic word IAO unaccompanied by
any other Gnostic feature should be accepted as atoning for the
ommission of everything else.
The Ecclesiae Gnosticae Catholicae Canon Missae is not what its title
declares. It is a complicated magical ceremony of considerable dramatic
effect written in the typical bombastic style of Crowley, and dilated
with his poetry, and containing quasi-Egyptian, Kabbalistic and other
elements, with the Christian sacramental mythos notably absent. It does
not contain many of the essential features which make up a Mass in any
and all branches of the church catholic whether in East or West.
Although it does contain the necessary formula of consecration in Greek
("this is my body" and "this is the chalice of my blood")
the formula of consecration is taken out of the traditional context
wherein it is identified as spoken by Jesus the Christ. Also in other
portions of the Mass the consecrated host is referred to as sperm, and
indeed there exists a probably well-founded rumour to the effect that
the bread-like substance used in the Mass contains sperm. It is also
telling that although many personages of various spiritual stature from
Lao-Tze and Krishna to Rabelais, Swinburne and (naturally) Sir Aleister
Crowley are mentioned by nae in the Mass, the name of Jesus or Christ
is never mentioned once. This ritual is clearly not a Mass in any
sense of the Christian and catholic mythos. We are not informed
whether Crowley recognized or had any use for the other six sacraments,
or whether he felt that one, i.e. his Mass was enough. The story goes
that he wrote this Mass after he visited a Russian Orthodox service in
Russia, which pleased him. Even if this ritual were a lot more
satisfactory from both a catholic and a Gnostic point of view, one
would be forced to say: "one Mass no church doth make".
The teachings of Crowleyanity (as Maj. Gen. J.F.C. Fuller named it) are
too vast to be analysed here. The only feature we need to mention here
is the so-called Law of Thelema (Will) which involves the acceptance of
a new sacred scripture gathered on occult ways by Crowley and called
the "Book of the Law" and the acceptance of Crowley as the prophet and
incarnation of the new Aeon of Horus, which is said to have supplanted
and indeed abolished the old Aeon of Osiris, to which belongs the
Christian mythos with its dying and resurrecting God. It is almost
needless to emphasize that this mythos is unacceptable to any Gnostic
who takes his inspiration even in part from the authentic scriptues of
the ancient Gnostics, or to any peson who has an affinity for the
sacraments of the catholic mythos, which are all based on the
mysterious and majestic figure of the Christ. With all due respect to
Aleister Crowley, we as custodians of this certain tradition of the
Christian Gnosis are by no means willing to substitute Baphomet -
Therion - Perdurabo - Crowley for the figure of the Christ!
Conclusions
In view of these several and other considerations it is only fair to
state that we of the Ecclesia Gnostica and its associated bodies cannot
in good conscience recognize the O.T.O. groups and their alleged
Gnostic Church as being in any way compatible to or related to our own
effort or movement. We do not question the sincerity and worthiness of
the efforts of persons in these movements and wish them not only no
harm but the best in every way. To compare us to the Thelemite groups
is impossible and tantamount to comparing apples and oranges. We do not
doubt that their efforts may play some useful role in the Gnostic
revival, though we honestly can't see what it might be. We would even
respectfully suggest that they might call themselves some other names
which would more truthfully describe their orientation, such as
Kabbalists, Magicians and so forth and leave the name Gnostic to those
whose teaching and practise resembles the original model more closely.
Meanwhile we fell dutybound to uphold our own Gnostic traditions and as
far as we may be able to do so to prevent them being confounded with
what they are not.
To sum up the conclusions which we feel must be drawn from the
foregoing we might consider the following points:
(1) No kind of intercommunion of sacramental nature may be
established between ourselves and any revival movements of the O.T.O.
Since it is our policy to discourage intercommunion between our
communion and other bodies in any event, this point should not be
difficult to observe. The main reason for this cautionary stricture in
this instance is the fact that the validity of the O.T.O. orders is
very highly questionable.
(2) Any public association of our organization with the O.T.O.
revival movement should be scrupulously avoided. The reasons for
this are both theoretical and practical. In terms of theory and
teaching we cannot go along with the so-called Law of Thelema which
abrogates the Christian dispensation and substitutes for it the erratic
personality and unsatisfactory doctrines of the late Aleister Crowley.
The Christian mythos in Gnostic interpretation represents our main
foundation. We do not hesitate to amplify this mythos by any
spiritually stimulating element which appears compatible with it, but
we have no inclination to replace this mythos with any other. In addition
to this, Crowleyanity and its votaries possess a not undeserved evil
reputation in many circles of spiritual and occult students. There is
no need for us to be tarnished by this same brush.
(3) In spite of the above statements we wish to state that we pass
no judgement on Crowley, the O.T.O. or anyone who accepts the
so-called Law of Thelema. All members of our Ecclesia, whether clergy
or laity are entirely free to study or to otherwise involve themselves
with the legacy of Crowley if they wish. Similarly we do not wish to
withold our friendship and recognition from Bishops or Churches
possessing valid orders but being disposed more positively toward the
"Law of Thelema" than we are ourselves. It needs to be remembered
therefore that our policy of dissociation concerns the O.T.O. revival
movements themselves and not bodies which may be inclined toward
Crowley, but otherwise possessing valid orders and observing the
accepted forms of the sacraments. Our clergy and lay members are
advised to consult verbally with their bishops regarding the details
and other feature of this matter.
(4) The issue of the Thelemite bodies brings us a delicate point which
all Gnostics must face sooner or later. While Gnosis and Gnosticism
cannot and should not be rigidly defined, from this one should not draw
the erroneous conclusion that everything is Gnostic that adopts that
name. In the last analysis it is the prerogative as well as the duty of
the individual to discriminate and chose between the authentic and the
inauthentic in this field. Still, an Ecclesia (Association) of our kind
also has obligations in this regard. Among these is the upholding of
the specific Gnostic traditions which have from the beginning been
generally taught and accepted among us as the fundamental basis of our
ecclesiastical life, and without which our Ecclesia has no distinctive
reason to exist. To act otherwise would invite chaos both in our own
ranks and in our relationships to the inquiring public which expects a
clear and meaningful presentation of the Gnosis from us. These are not
times when we can afford our trumpet emmitting an uncertain sound. The
charming vagaries of the Flower Child Era are passing, indeed they have
already given way to a far more focussed form of inquiry among the
public than we have seen in a long time. Thus, while the knowledge of
the Heart will always remain our chief concern, the distinctions and
definitions formulated by the knowing Mind informed by Gnosis must also
be given its due in our activities. To sift the wheat from the chaff is
part of Gnosis. It is thus that we feel justified in preparing this
Position Paper which we now bring to a close.
Study a version of Stephan Hoeller's Mass that was modified by the EGA's late Primate, Roger St. Victor Herard (Tau Charles)
SPERMATOZOOLOGY
Spermo-Gnostics and the Ordo Templi Orientis
Correct Gnosticism
The Secrets of the O.T.O.
Smoke gets in your Aiwass
Nosferatu's Baby -- Too Hot To Handle
Main page about the Gnostic Churches
More about all this in: Andreas Huettl and Peter-R. Koenig: Satan - Jünger, Jäger und Justiz
O.T.O. Phenomenon content
page | main page
| Aura of the O.T.O. Phenomenon
|
mail
What's New on the O.T.O. Phenomenon site?
