ModernGnosis.org

Position Paper
Concerning Stephan Hoeller’s Denouncement of Thelemic Gnostic Churches

This position paper is a statement clarifying the views of Bishop Tau Sciam regarding Stephan Hoeller’s position paper “Concerning the Thelemite or Crowleyan Gnostic Churches”.¹

An Outdated Paper

First, one must notice the first sentence in this paper, a preface by Koenig:

[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.]

This small preface alone tells us that this paper is outdated and does not apply to the current Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica. It mentions one consecration that happened, however the actual story is, as is often the case, more complex than that. The actual story is that the EGC holds quite a few lines of Apostolic succession from outside the OTO.

The OTO lineage very likely stretches back to at least 1909 when Reuss exchanged consecrations with Papus at a convention of Masonic occultists, and cross-consecration was so common that it seems more likely than likely that Crowley was multiply consecrated sub conditione. Certainly, Breeze has Apostolic Succession through Jack Hogg (as well as Grady McMurtry, who was consecrated by Crowley in the manner that a Patriarch would consecrate a Bishop) , and Scriven – if he “didn’t” have it through Breeze (he did) would have had it anyway – from ….. get this …. Me.²

That is, of course, Tau Sir Hasirim, aka Bishop Tau Allen Greenfield speaking. He goes on to say:

Now, I had no need to cross-consecrate with him, as he well knew. Whatever Episcopal or other “powers” passed through OTO, his derived from consecration by Bill Breeze, who derived his from (A) Bertiaux (by way of Jack Hogg) or (B) Crowley (by way of Major McMurtry, the late Caliph). As Bo. Bill had followed up on his letter of recognition by putting me up at a nice hotel in New York (paid jointly, I understand, by Jim Wasserman - those were different times) and consecrating me a Bishop by his own hand, the only one who stood to gain from ‘cross-consecration’ was David, in the sense that Bertiaux had more recently consecrated me, after being reconsecrated himself by Rodriguez and F.E.G. Barber - that is, after the Hogg-Breeze consecrations. Not content even with *that* Scriven went to Rodriguez and got reconsecrated once again, adding some additional lineages.

And then:

I thereafter for years made a point of – in co-consecrating EGC Bishops, laid hands upon every new Bishop with full apostolic intent. This was my own, quiet, effort to keep the OTO properly empowered with the egregore of the ancient authentic tradition.

So, it becomes apparent that not only does the modern EGC contain lines of Apostolic succession, it contains more than one!

Lumping Together of Churches Not in the Same Succession

The position paper by Dr. Hoeller makes an egregious mistake. It lumps together many churches that, although they subscribe to their own personal interpretations of the philosophy of Thelema, they do not necessarily share lineages, Apostolic Succession, practices, etc. It is well known within Thelemic circles that the number of members in the OTO/EGC is less than the number of former members, but it’s also estimated that the number of Thelemites within the OTO is a third or less of the number of Thelemites existing. While the Ordo Templi Orientis is the largest public body of Thelemites, it does not contain the majority of Thelemites.

Knowing this to be the case, it seems quite improper to attack the EGC/OTO and then lump all Thelemites and Thelemic churches in with them. Of course, the paper tries to get around this by saying churches should be examined on an individual basis, but it consistently groups all of these institutions together in its attacks of the EGC. This broad brush stereotyping utterly fails as anything but an ad hominem attack upon Thelemites in general. It is very unprofessional and reaches its apex in Hoeller’s statement:

In addition to this, Crowleyanity and its votaries possess a not undeserved evil reputation in many circles of spiritual and occult students.

One wonders if Hoeller has personally contacted every Thelemite who has lived to verify they deserve an “evil reputation”. At the very least, we should wonder if he contacted the Thelemic Gnostic Church of Alexandria which, in 2008 alone, donated 4,000 pounds of clothing to an organization which labors to help the working poor in Portland, Oregon!³

Attempts to Portray Gnosticism as a Distinctly Christian Tradition

Although not specifically said in this paper, Hoeller seems to insinuate that Gnosticism is a Christian tradition. However, even though there was a Christian Gnostic movement, all Gnostics are not and were not Christians. There is some evidence that Gnosticism actually predated Christianity. ⁴ This is even acknowledged on the websites of Hoeller’s own organization:

“The Hermetic tradition represents a non-Christian form of Gnosticism”⁵

“The Hermetic tradition represents a non-Christian lineage of Hellenistic Gnosticism.”⁶

As a matter of fact, the oldest surviving Gnostic tradition is of a non-Christian Gnostic group⁷ who consider Jesus to be a false messiah!⁸ Add to this the fact that the Corpus Hermeticum was found and translated in the late fifteenth century⁹, and we begin to see that the predominant Gnostic tradition throughout the ages has been of the non-Christian variety, even though the philosophy was often appropriated by the Christians, possibly mirroring the beginnings of Christian Gnosticism itself. To show this happening throughout the ages, one needs only to look into the Cathars and Bogomils, two sects often considered to be eruptions of Gnosticism in the Middle Ages. These groups can both be traced back to Manicheanism, another non-Christian group often considered to be Gnostic.

Fails to Understand that the EGC is not a Christian Organization

This makes much of Hoeller’s criticism moot. As he says in this paper:

The Christian mythos in Gnostic interpretation represents our main foundation

and also:

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.

But, at no point does the EGC claim to be a Christian organization, nor does it claim the Gnostic Mass is a Christian Mass. Rather, it states:

In composing Liber XV, Crowley attempted to uncover the hidden Gnostic tradition concealed within the ceremony of the Mass, to liberate it from bondage to the Scholastic theories and dogmas of Christian theology, and to demonstrate the fundamental continuity between this ancient tradition of Wisdom and the modern revelations and liberating philosophy of Thelema.¹⁰

So, many of the statements of Hoeller concerning how the EGC doesn’t subscribe to his Christian tradition are, of course, ridiculous. As we have shown, one does not have to be Christian in order to be Gnostic and the longest surviving Gnostic traditions are rooted firmly in non-Christian belief systems. Yes, Hermetic Gnosticism is different than Christian Gnosticism. One does not need to read a position paper to understand that.

Focuses Too Much on Crowley

In addition, the majority of this position paper seems to focus on Aleister Crowley, a man who died sixty years ago. Crowley did not start the EGC, nor did he adopt the Gnostic Mass as the central sacrament of the EGC. Both of these actions were done by Theodore Reuss.¹¹ Nonetheless, the founder of an organization or religion seldom has anything to do with how valid that organization is in the lives of its practitioners, especially 60 years after that founder’s death. This attempt to insinuate things about a living organization based on one’s dislike of a long-dead man is preposterous, especially when you admit you did not even know that man personally.¹² Based upon his profound misunderstanding of the Mass and of Thelema, we can also assume that he didn’t study Crowley much, either.

This is even stranger when we see the type of things written about his own Bishop, Duc de Palatine, such as the following excerpts:

Palatine could be confrontational, demanding, extremely narrow in his perception of people and
relationships, and he alienated many of his students and closest associates. In trying to shape
the esoteric world and societies of the 1950’s and 1960’s to his vision, he often high-handedly
trespassed against tact and convention–not always for the better–and expected too much from
his students. Some of his private correspondences in my archives reveal the extent to which his
students disappointed him.

However, as one critic of Palatine points out, “most lineages are only valid when passed down a
line of successful practitioners [i.e., Tibetan Buddhism, Sufism, etc.]. I therefore find myself
sceptical of any lineages passed via ‘collectors’ of degrees (who make no attempt to practice),
such as may/will be the case with anything received via the Duc de Palatine.” ¹³

Attempts to Determine the Validity of an Older Organization by Comparing it to His Own Newer One

Bishop Hoeller makes the claim that his organization is the oldest sacramental Gnostic body in the United States. However, that distinction goes to the Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica not to Hoeller’s Ecclesia Gnostica. Aleister Crowley wrote the Gnostic Mass in 1913. In 1918, Reuss adopted it as the official mass of the Gnostic Catholic Church (aka EGC). It was first publicly celebrated in Hollywood, California Sunday, March 19, 1933. ¹⁴ It was celebrated there at what became Agape Lodge weekly from 1933 to 1942, when the lodge moved to a new facility in Pasadena, CA.

After Crowley’s death, Carl Germer took over. During the reign of Germer, the only OTO group performing the Gnostic Mass on a regular basis was the Swiss OTO at their temple in Stein. They started celebrating the Gnostic Mass in the 1950s. It is unknown whether there were any non-OTO Thelemites performing the Gnostic Mass in the US, but the OTO lay dormant from 1962-1969 when the last ranking officer of Ordo Templi Orientis International invoked emergency powers given to him by Crowley and assumed the throne as Hymenaeus Alpha. In July 1977, the new Caliph, along with other members of the OTO, formally celebrated the Gnostic Mass, the first time an OTO body had done so in the US since Agape Lodge. ¹⁵

So, Hoeller’s claims to run the oldest sacramental Gnostic body in the U.S. Is very suspect. This is especially true in light of the fact that the EGC was performing Gnostic Masses in the United States weekly twenty-six years before Hoeller’s organization even came to the United States¹⁶ and twenty years before his consecrating Bishop even founded its predecessor.¹⁷ This makes any attempt to determine the validity of the EGC by comparing it to the much younger EG an exercise in absurdness.

Conclusion

It is therefore my conclusion that this paper by Stephan Hoeller is untenable and represents a facetious and invalid argument. The abject bias and stereotyping evident throughout this document represents a wholly regrettable and improper stance for a Bishop of the Gnosis to take and it’s my opinion that Hoeller has done a disservice not only to the Thelemites he has sought to attack, but to the entire movement of Gnostics which he claims to represent and serve. This poorly thought-out and executed statement appears to have no other purpose than turning Gnostic against Gnostic based upon his personal biases. As such,it appears to be an abject misuse of the mantle, and I hereby call upon Bishop Stephan A. Hoeller to apologize for such disreputable actions.

Footnotes