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).