A Brief Overview of Modern Gnosticism

a contemporary seal of Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica

In my previous entry, I shared my recent experiences as a Thelemic gnostic and current member of Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica attending a Eucharistic service operating under the auspices of one of our sister traditions, Ecclesia Gnostica. In this particular appreciation, I mentioned some of the similarities I noticed, but not many of the differences on account of not wanting to distract myself from the experience of writing and sharing my experience. For individuals not particularly familiar with contemporary forms of Gnosticism, it might seem strange to suggest that there are many differences between different gnostic groups – after all, we’re all dirty, stinky, filthy heretics – but the truth is, as in other denominations or traditions with similar backgrounds, gnostics as individuals and as groups are very heterodox in particular viewpoints despite coming from a very similar background and even in praxis there are some strong ritual differences which may vary from sect to sect.

Episcopal seal of Jules Doinel, Eglise Gnostique Universelle Catholique

For the purposes of this essay, I’m not going to focus much on historical Gnosticism as practiced in the second and third centuries CE. This reason is twofold: first, despite having access to scriptures and first and second hand accounts of our religious forbears, early gnostic groups were widely varied and the information we have about their practices come primarily from heresiological sources which cannot be adequately trusted; secondly, contemporary Gnosticism does not represent an unbroken line of praxis or scriptural coherency from the early sects and, at best, can only be traced back to the gnostic revivals of 19th Century Europe. This notwithstanding, I must also mention that there are elements of historical Gnosticism which have been preserved culturally as well as theologically amongst mainline Christian churches – in particular amongst the Hesychastic practices in Eastern Orthodoxy and in some of the writings of the early Church Fathers and mystics, but this is deserving of a more thorough study for a later date.

Ecclesiastical seal of the Apostolic Johannite Church, modern

As I mentioned, contemporary Gnosticism dates back no earlier than the 19th Century. It was during this period of European expansionism that modern Biblical archeology became a field of serious inquiry, leading to the discovery and subsequent translation of many texts that had a coherent connection to historical Gnosticism, early Christianity and late Greco-Egyptian pagan religious traditions. In 1769 the Bruce Codex was brought to England from Upper Egypt by the famous Scottish traveller Bruce, and subsequently bequeathed to the care of the Bodleian Library, Oxford. Sometime prior to 1785 The Askew Codex (aka Pistis Sophia) was bought by the British Museum from the heirs of Dr. Askew. Pistis Sophia text and Latin translation of the Askew Codex by M. G. Schwartze published in 1851. During this time as well, the formation of the Theosophical Society by Mme. Blavatsky as well as the existence of various strains of esoteric Freemasonry contributed to a strong countercultural interest in esoteric Christianity, in particular Gnosticism.

A contemporary episcopal crest of the Liberal Catholic Church

All of this came to a head in 1890 when, after a series of visions and impacted by the rediscovery of various Cathar (Albegensian) documents, a librarian named Jules-Benoît Stanislas Doinel du Val-Michel (aka Jules Doinel) established the Eglise Gnostique (French: Gnostic Church) and declared a “the era gnosis restored.” The establishment of Eglise Gnostique represented a major departure from the Christianities of its day in that its liturgy and theology represented the fullest extant understanding of Cathar liturgy and theology of the day and, secondly (arguably most importantly) allowed the ordination of men and women on an egalitarian basis. It is also important to note that, in a departure from apostolic Christianity, Doinel was “spiritually consecrated” in a spiritual experience in 1888 and not into a line of Apostolic Succession. Doinel subsequently consecrated a number of bishops for the Eglise Gnostique, notable among these was Gérard Encausse founder of the closely allied Martinist Order.

The importance of apostolicity as validating one’s abilities as clergy prior to this has been one of the defining characteristics of liturgical Christian traditions prior to the Protestant Reformation going back at least as far as the Donatist controversy of the fourth and fifth centuries. The importance is emphasized most in Western Christianity which teaches that any bishop can consecrate any other baptized man as a bishop provided that the bishop observes the minimum requirements for the sacramental validity of the ceremony. This means that the consecration is considered valid even if it flouts certain ecclesiastical laws, and even if the participants are schismatics or heretics. In certain historical periods where various regions lacked formal access to bishops or in which no formal Bishophoric Seat has been established, there has been a long line of episcopi vagantes (wandering bishops) whose job it was to travel and oversee particular jurisdictions. It is from these groups that modern Gnostic groups would obtain their apostolicity, in particular through two lines: Fabré-Palaprat’s l’Église Johannites des Chretiens Primitif (Johannite Church of the Primitive Christians) and Joseph René Vilatte whose participation with the Old Catholic Church of Utrecht would also pave the way toward the development of the Liberal Catholic Church which would be deeply involved from the onset with the Theosophical movement.

As a brief departure, I would like to present the following graphical illustration of contemporary gnostic churches for the purposes of better understanding the various streams which exist currently to show their development over time while avoiding the complexity of succession:

Church l’Église Johannites des Chretiens Primitif Eliate Church of Carmel Eglise Gnostique Eglise Gnostique Universelle The Liberal Catholic Church Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica Pre-Nicene Gnostic Catholic Church(Ecclesia Gnostica) Eglise Gnostique Apostolique
Name of Founder Fabré-Palaprat Eugene Vintras Jules Doinel Jean Bricaud James Wedgewood and Charles Leadbeater Theodore Reuss Duc du Palatine Robert Amberline
Foundation 1803 1848 1890 1907 1919 1920 1952 1953

These particular churches represent the primary streams of contemporary Gnosticism, however matters are somewhat complicated by individual churches such as Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica which, while founded upon the apostolic succession bestowed on Theodore Reuss through the Bricaud and Dionel successions, represents an interesting case-study in that Reuss’ successor, Aleister Crowley, doesn’t seem to indicate whether he obtained consecration from Reuss and, secondly that it makes a near complete break with other, Gnostic Christian churches in favor of Crowley’s religious philosophy of Thelema. Due to this, there is some debate some gnostic branches today which question the validity of considering Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica as part of the gnostic community. This is deserving of further study on many grounds. Important to note, however, is that the contemporary Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica does not itself rely on Apostolic Succession from Christian lineage and, instead, according to current United States Grand Lodge representative Sabazius X°, relies solely on the authority of Aleister Crowley as To Mega Therion DCLXVI. Despite this, many bishops in EGC do have consecrations from other gnostic lineages which can be adequately traced back to early sources.

An interesting point of difference can be made by comparing three of the four major streams of Gnosticism active in North America – Ecclesia Gnostica, Ecclesia Gnostica Mysteriorum, Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica and the Apostolic Johannite Church. While there are other churches that may represent varying degrees of “gnostic apostolicity”, I present these four as representative of the greater gnostic tradition due to their apostolic lines as well and the number of adherents.

Name of Church Ecclesia Gnostica Ecclesia Gnostica Mysteriorum Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica Apostolic Johannite Church
Date Founded 1953 1978 1919 1804 (original), 2000
Name of Founder Rev. Richard Duc de Palatine Rosamonde Miller Theodor Reuss Palaprat (?)
Apostolic Succession Old Catholic and Leadbeater/Wedgwood Old Catholic, Liberal Catholic, Palatine, Marian (?) Palaprat, Doinel, Bricaud, Villate Old Catholic, Roman Catholic, Palaprat, Doinel, Vilatte
Current Patriarch Rev. Stephen Hoeller Rosamonde Miller Hymanaeus Beta, XII°, T Apyrion (US) The Most Rev. Mar Iohannes IV, Ep.Gn. (CA), The Most Rev. Mar Thomas, AC, Ph.D, Ep.Gn. (US)

For now, I hope this exploration in the different traditions of modern Gnosticism provides an adequate example of the complexities involved in understanding the differences that may arise in understanding individual traditions. While historically it has been near to impossible to probe deep enough to look at this particular subgroup of the Western religious tradition, it is my hope to delve deeper into the individual schools of gnostic thought and, hopefully, be able to provide a comprehensive survey of modern Gnosticism and its relevance today.

About these ads

About Michael Sebastian Lùx

Proud product of the Pacific Northwest, I work in marketing and in my free time like to hang out with friends, volunteer for different causes, participate in church, and blog. View all posts by Michael Sebastian Lùx

9 Responses to “A Brief Overview of Modern Gnosticism”

  • daechron

    A very interesting essay. You describe the differences between the criteria necessary for the consecration of bishops–in such as groups as the EGU and OTO–across 19th-20th c. Gnostic Orders well. It would be interesting to read a further discussion of how the various schisms of the early EGU, Martinist Order, and l’Eglise Gnostique Catholique played a role in the development of different Gnostic streams. It’s interesting that you didn’t include the Martinist Order of Unknown Philosophers, as they carry apostolic succession through Gerrard Encause. Overall, very awesome. Keep up the good work!

    • Michael Strojan

      Yes! I’m aware of that deficiency. I purposefully left a big blank spot for a further discussion of para-Masonry and the influence of Hermeticism in modern Gnosticism. For the most part this essay was to give the reader a very brief overview.

  • Shaun McCann, Ep.Gn. (@Ioannes)

    Enjoyed reading this- and nice to see a nod to Hesychasm as well.

    As a point of note- while the AJC can and does trace its lineage to Palaprat’s Church (among others), as well as consider itself a successor to its work, the founding date proper is much more recent- eleven years ago by my predecessor Iohannes III (Foster).

    I’ll add your blog to my newsreader- thanks again.

  • T Polyphilus

    Nice summary. As an EGC bishop, I don’t identify with any “Gnostic community” outside of Thelema. Although I once went to the bother of composing these notes, I now find all “apostolic successions” that claim to descend from the Biblical Jesus to be for entertainment purposes only.

    Although there is arguably an apostolate to 666 in A.’.A.’., there is no apostolic function in EGC as such, as far as I’m concerned. The transmission of holy orders within EGC is not a matter of descent from a founder, but of extension from the persistent Sovereign Sanctuary.

    • Michael Strojan

      Thank you, Brother, for your comments and insight. Yes, while I’m mostly on the fence regarding the historicity of apostolic succession from the time of Jesus, what fascinates me most is the fact that it does exist (at least conceptually) and I’d be interested in seeing the links even if it only dates back to the 5th Century… For entertainment purposes. ;)

      As for the EGC side of things, we’re in a particularly peculiar position that I find very fascinating beyond my own personal involvement. That our ecclesial authority rests with 666 and the Sovereign Sanctuary and, by extension, with the A.’.A.’. seems to me somewhat unique in Western religion, in particular modern religious thought. Your writings to that end have been very helpful.

      • T Polyphilus

        Hm, I think I might have given an incorrect impression. The Sovereign Sanctuary of the Gnosis is independent of A.’.A.’., and while 666 participated in the Sovereign Sanctuary (and even served as its Outer Head), it does not “follow” him. Although AC was both the Prophet of the Aeon and the author of the Mass which forms the core of EGC sacramental liturgy, he’s not the authorizing entity of EGC–that would be the Sovereign Sanctuary itself: the body which is the conscious custodian of the Gnosis of OTO.

      • Michael Strojan

        That’s what I got from your comment – I gave the wrong impression. I blame it on just waking up and not having enough coffee. My wrong.

  • Milagros

    Cool article it’s actually. Friend on mine has long been awaiting just for this content.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 417 other followers

%d bloggers like this: