This article is about a veritable obscure role for the ritual magician, that of magician and priest. When I say priest, I am referring to the role of acting as a spiritual mediator, a channel of divine blessings and a producer of transubstantiated sacraments, such as wine, ale and hosts of unleavened bread. One might ask what these things have to do with pagan ritual magick, but truly, they are important if we consider the liturgies that produce these sacred things to be essentially magickal. The sacraments themselves are magickal products, and can even be used as magickal tools. The Mass rite itself can be considered a ritual that exteriorizes and unleashes great spiritual powers that could be harnessed and used to potently charge a temple or a grove, preparing it for further magickal work. What I am proposing may be considered new and perhaps even a radical idea, but it is actually a very old idea whose importance was lost over the last few centuries. I would also like to propose that these liturgies, taken as they are from Catholicism, are actually quite pagan and also magickal.
If we carefully look over the old grimoires, we can see that certain operations, particularly with the tasks of consecrating tools and vestments, required the employment of a priest. It would seem that the performing of blessings, consecrations and even the saying of Mass were background disciplines that required someone to not only possess the knowledge but also the supposed authority to perform these services. Some have speculated that perhaps the real audience for the practice of ceremonial magick in the late middle ages wasn’t secular practitioners, but clerics, who not only knew how to read and write, but also had knowledge of liturgical processes that would make the rites and practices of magick much more effective. These perspectives are especially true for the early grimoires, such as the Heptameron or the Sworn Book of Honorius (Liber Juratus).
Whatever the role of the cleric or priest as an auxiliary to the ceremonial magician, by the 18th century, it would seem that either these requirements were circumvented or ignored altogether. During the grimoire revival of the late 19th century, the need for the services of a priest was completely forgotten, as secular members of esoteric organizations based on the Masonic model dominated the occult practices and writings of the time. It wasn’t until Aleister Crowley popularized the inclusion of the Gnostic Mass and various Thelemic based liturgies into the corpus of the magick and ceremonies of the O.T.O. that occultists began again to ponder the role of sacramental technology in the practice of magick. Perhaps one of the strongest proponents of this approach was Michael Bertiaux, duly noted first in the writings of Kenneth Grant and later in his own work. Yet even he didn’t perceive that the liturgical rites could be used solely for magick.
During the twentieth century, the historical knowledge and the actual texts from late antiquity started to become much more available, and as that occurred, it became more evident to scholars and occultists that the Gnostic and Hermetic practitioners of magick apparently had blended the role of magician and cult priest into a single vocation. It’s quite conceivable that the mixing of roles represented a very old tradition in the practice of ceremonial magick. It might even be accurate to say that the high magick of antiquity was practiced by cult leaders officiating as priests or priestesses for one of the various (chthonic) gods or goddesses. Later on, philosopher magicians would appear, but even they still seemed to function as a kind of priest. Apollonius of Tyana is probably a good example of the kind of practitioner that I am talking about here, where the combination of philosopher, priest and magician was very much the avocation of the Neopythagorean and the Neoplatonist.
So it would seem that it was once quite natural that a sorcerer or magician would also have been a priest and a liturgical cult expert of one of the pagan gods or goddesses. These insights have only bolstered the argument that modern practitioners of magick should also combine the role of magician and priest into a seamless discipline. There are some very compelling arguments that can be made to support this perspective, and I will seek to state them here for my readers to consider. They may either acknowledge or repudiate them, as they see fit. My reason for proposing this combination is actually based on personal experience, undoubtably due to the fact that I am a witch, ritual magician and a gnostic bishop.
It has become something of a fad or a bonafide for authenticity lately for one to be both an occultist and a cleric, but they seem to be employed as two distinct disciplines. None of these organizations or individuals has promoted using the liturgies as a foundation for the work of magick. They appear to be performed as separate disciplines, as if one might contaminate the other if they were mixed. The mass and its liturgies are performed as they are in Catholic churches, as a religious celebration enacted for the benefit of the congregation. Magick is performed by individuals or small groups for the benefit of that individual or group. As my wise lady has so adroitly said, “for them, the mass is a destination, for you, it is just the starting place for working magick.”
Therefore, unlike the various organizations and individuals who have adopted the mass and other liturgies as part of an occult discipline, I don’t see any difference between magick and liturgical rites. That perspective probably comes from my foundation in Witchcraft, where it is often the case that liturgy is blended with magick, and magick becomes liturgy, or as some would say, it becomes “confused” with it. I make no apologies for the way I do things, and in fact, I think that it has given me some advantages. I have rediscovered a tradition and a methodology that is quite new, but also very old. For me, the mass and its various ancillary rites are the starting point for all of my major magickal workings.
Still, in functioning as a witch, ritual magician and a gnostic bishop, I have brought all three of these disciplines together into a single avocation, which is what I call the “Magician as Sacramental Technician.” These methodologies are tightly integrated into the manner that I invoke spirits, angels, demons, and various gods, goddesses and demi-gods. The use of the Mass to generate the requisite energy to perform exalted ritual workings, and the use of sacraments to sacralize the magick circle and to quicken the manifestation of spirits is likely unprecedented. I know that when I revealed this discreet practice to Stephen Hoeller years ago, he was quite shocked and horrified. As a proper priest it may seem sacrilegious, but from the stand-point of a “nuts and bolts” pagan ritual magician, it isn’t disrespectful or abusive to use sacraments in this fashion - as long as one isn’t playing the role of the proper cleric. In the context of sorcery, all of this is permitted because it is an act of loving and venerating the gods, goddesses and the whole range of the spiritual hierarchy. The flesh and blood of the Godhead is given freely, and the magician as sacramental technician uses it to empower, sacralize and quicken spiritual and magickal processes.
One might ask how I managed to find myself in the situation of being able to mix these roles together. Who would have given me holy orders, knowing that I was a witch, pagan and a ritual magician? Obviously, I had to have gotten an ordination and a consecration at some point in my magickal career from someone who knew what I believed and practiced. These events did indeed happen, although I don’t want to identify the individuals who aided me in this quest. The final elevation to a bishop was both appropriate and done by someone who I have respected and found common purpose with for more than a few decades. My lineage consists of both the Vilatte and Mathew succession of the Old Catholic Church, but the practices that I have employed from that lineage are fully pagan, Hermetic, Gnostic and magickal. The lineage itself is quite important, and I can actually feel and sense the power and authority as well as the responsibility that comes with it. I can see it in my mind as a long line of practitioners going back into the forgotten past. I suspect that I am imagining this connection, whether or not the actual lineage I hold goes back that far (it probably doesn’t). Even so, I sense the long succession of prelates going back in time. Supposedly, this line goes all the way back to Melchizadek himself, and I suppose that in a symbolic and mythic way, it does connect me with that exalted magician and priest. I choose to see things this way, and for me, they are indeed a reality.
Let me now carefully define the nature of the magician priest as a sacramental technician in broader terms, so perhaps my readers can understand this role from a theoretical instead of personal perspective. As I said in the beginning of this article, the magician-priest is a spiritual mediator. We should examine exactly what is meant by that phrase.
A spiritual mediator is a person who has the ability to summon, invoke, assume and communicate as an intermediary to the Godhead, however that aspect of Deity is defined. It is not enough to officiate at liturgical rites where the Deity is invoked and given offerings. A spiritual mediator has the ability to assume that Godhead fully, to allow for a kind of possession, and in that hallowed state, perform actions that manifest the will and essence of that Spirit into the material world. Those actions typically consist of consultation, various kinds of communications (oracular or advisory), and the blessing of material substances so that they become imbued with the spiritual essence of that Deity. The relationship between the priest and the Godhead is one of extreme intimacy, if that priest is truly mediating the Deity. Such an intimate contact would give the priest permission and the authority to act in the name of that Deity, to perform duties and assume obligations that would further the divine will of that Godhead. Thus the priest would know through this close association what is sanctioned and what is forbidden. One would assume that a magician-priest would serve as a mediator to a godhead that allowed magickal work and the use of sacraments to further its greater divine will. To choose a godhead that forbade such work would be completely counterproductive.
Since I am an advocate of working ritual magick while under the assumptive influence of one’s personal godhead, then the act of spiritual mediation is an integral part of it as well. By extension, the use of sacraments and the emanation of spiritual power from that godhead would also be a natural part of that relationship. All I have done is to formalize this relationship by reclaiming the Mass rite and its various ancillary rituals (such as the Benediction) to be aligned to my pagan spiritual beliefs. I found that this transition was pretty easy, since the Tridentine Catholic Mass is saturated with magickal beliefs and practices. So for me, it was a simple matter to bring all of these various practices together into a single magickal discipline.
The historical precedence for a magician priest as prelate or bishop can be found in the very word or term used to define this individual. A magician-prelate is actually a hierophant, which is a Greek term that comes from the words “hiera” - holy, and “phainein” - to show. A hierophant is someone who brings others into the presence of the divine. This is, of course, another way of saying mediator. The hierophant was a title of the chief priest officiating at the Eleusinian Mysteries in antiquity. A hierophant is a master of both the spiritual and material worlds, and has two symbolic keys (one gold, the other silver, tied with a red ribbon) to engage with them at will. As it is said “whatever is bound on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever is loosed on earth, shall be loosed in heaven.” This is a profound magickal statement, since it also ties in with the Emerald Tablet. I feel that the word “Hierophant” is a good title for anyone who is a pagan prelate - for they are a hierophant of the magickal mysteries. The central mystery is the Mass rite, and all other liturgical rites that are associated with it. This central mystery ties in to all of the other mysteries, such as the mystery of life and death.
Then there is the sticky issue of how a pagan can reconstitute what is, essentially, a Judeo-Christian lineage. How can I connect with this line of prelates going into the past when I am not a Christian, or even a Christian apologist? The solution is quite simple, there are different qualities of the lineage entwined together - mine is one that is purely occultic and magickal. Because I have adopted both Hermetic and Gnostic philosophies into what I believe and practice as a pagan and a witch, I would be considered much more a member of that line then one that is in alignment with apostle Peter. My lineage, based as it is on my practices, is therefore, an anti-apostolic line or “succession.” Because the Gnostics and Hermeticists were considered enemies to the apostolic succession and persecuted as heretics, I find that I am more in alignment with them. Therefore, I would represent the other succession, and I am not at all the first to have this connection. Whenever there have been individuals who received the consecration of a prelate, and who also practiced occultism, paganism or magick, they have been representatives of this succession. There is a long line of these individuals, and Crowley, Wedgwood, Leadbeater, Bertiaux, and many others have been or are members of this unofficial group. I believe that this line is just as valid and important as the more exoteric apostolic succession that comes from Roman Catholicism.
All prelates outside of the apostolic succession are considered auto-cephalus, in other words, they are autonomous and free to establish their congregation and spiritual domain as they see fit. They are completely independent and answer to no one except the Deity that they represent. As such, many prelates in this line seek the more empowering and rewarding paths of occultism and esoteric philosophy, and some have sought out the art of magick and deeper forms of occultism. All of this is valid and properly sanctioned, since the prelate is independent and may seek whatever inspires him or her, or do whatever is necessary to serve the Deity. Therefore, as a prelate and a magician, I may serve my Godhead and do whatever is necessary, allowed or required. I can be a pagan, witch, and a ritual magician without committing apostasy or blaspheme.
Finally, we should discuss what is required of one to function as a priest, prelate and pagan ritual magician. First of all, to become a prelate requires that the candidate receive a proper consecration rite, performed amidst a special votive Mass. These acts by the bishop consist most importantly of the laying on of hands onto the candidate’s head (cheirotonia), and the blowing of the breath (pneuma) on the crown. There is also an application of consecrated balm (anointing) placed on the forehead and the index and thumb of each hand, and the consecration of a special jeweled ring (usually amethyst), which would seem to seal the process. Often the newly installed prelate will be given new vestments to wear, and perhaps even a miter or tiara crown of some kind. Thus a consecration rite would appear to be an intimate and hallowed gift of hands, breath and chrism from the standing bishop to the candidate. Within orthodox circles, two or three bishops are required to consecrate a new bishop, but in the uncanonical circles of occultists and magicians, only one is required. In this manner, the lineage is passed from one prelate to another, as it was in the beginning of the Christian church, and more likely, long before even that time.
The vehicle for the consecration is a Mass rite, said by the Bishop to invoke and make manifest the tangible spirit of the Godhead, so it may descend through the person of the prelate into the body of the candidate. The Mass rite is the key to this whole process, and a candidate prelate must have completely mastered this key before being made a prelate himself. I would require a candidate to write their own high and low mass rites, as well as a Benediction rite and other ancillary rites, as needed. It would also be helpful but not absolutely necessary if the candidate had received a lesser elevation to that of a priest or pontifex, where he or she would function as a practicing mediator while under the authority of the prelate. Once the candidate is consecrated, then he or she is completely independent of any spiritual authority, having become an authority vested and autonomously aligned to a specific godhead.
A priest or pontifex must master the following liturgical practices in order to be considered a proper hierophant. These practices are also incorporated into the core magickal practices, so they would be seamless to one learning the art of ritual magick.
As you can see, the assumption of these practices are a seamless addition to the practices of ritual magick. Some of these practices and responsibilities are already a part of the regimen of ritual magick, so it would be a small matter to add a few other practices and skills to complete the process of becoming a fully functioning prelate and ritual magician. I believe that I have fully made the case for you, the reader, to consider whether or not this discipline would be relevant to you. The Order of the Gnostic Star has incorporated the anti-apostolic succession into its degree structure, using it instead of the Masonic system for the conferring of initiations.
If we carefully look over the old grimoires, we can see that certain operations, particularly with the tasks of consecrating tools and vestments, required the employment of a priest. It would seem that the performing of blessings, consecrations and even the saying of Mass were background disciplines that required someone to not only possess the knowledge but also the supposed authority to perform these services. Some have speculated that perhaps the real audience for the practice of ceremonial magick in the late middle ages wasn’t secular practitioners, but clerics, who not only knew how to read and write, but also had knowledge of liturgical processes that would make the rites and practices of magick much more effective. These perspectives are especially true for the early grimoires, such as the Heptameron or the Sworn Book of Honorius (Liber Juratus).
Whatever the role of the cleric or priest as an auxiliary to the ceremonial magician, by the 18th century, it would seem that either these requirements were circumvented or ignored altogether. During the grimoire revival of the late 19th century, the need for the services of a priest was completely forgotten, as secular members of esoteric organizations based on the Masonic model dominated the occult practices and writings of the time. It wasn’t until Aleister Crowley popularized the inclusion of the Gnostic Mass and various Thelemic based liturgies into the corpus of the magick and ceremonies of the O.T.O. that occultists began again to ponder the role of sacramental technology in the practice of magick. Perhaps one of the strongest proponents of this approach was Michael Bertiaux, duly noted first in the writings of Kenneth Grant and later in his own work. Yet even he didn’t perceive that the liturgical rites could be used solely for magick.
During the twentieth century, the historical knowledge and the actual texts from late antiquity started to become much more available, and as that occurred, it became more evident to scholars and occultists that the Gnostic and Hermetic practitioners of magick apparently had blended the role of magician and cult priest into a single vocation. It’s quite conceivable that the mixing of roles represented a very old tradition in the practice of ceremonial magick. It might even be accurate to say that the high magick of antiquity was practiced by cult leaders officiating as priests or priestesses for one of the various (chthonic) gods or goddesses. Later on, philosopher magicians would appear, but even they still seemed to function as a kind of priest. Apollonius of Tyana is probably a good example of the kind of practitioner that I am talking about here, where the combination of philosopher, priest and magician was very much the avocation of the Neopythagorean and the Neoplatonist.
So it would seem that it was once quite natural that a sorcerer or magician would also have been a priest and a liturgical cult expert of one of the pagan gods or goddesses. These insights have only bolstered the argument that modern practitioners of magick should also combine the role of magician and priest into a seamless discipline. There are some very compelling arguments that can be made to support this perspective, and I will seek to state them here for my readers to consider. They may either acknowledge or repudiate them, as they see fit. My reason for proposing this combination is actually based on personal experience, undoubtably due to the fact that I am a witch, ritual magician and a gnostic bishop.
It has become something of a fad or a bonafide for authenticity lately for one to be both an occultist and a cleric, but they seem to be employed as two distinct disciplines. None of these organizations or individuals has promoted using the liturgies as a foundation for the work of magick. They appear to be performed as separate disciplines, as if one might contaminate the other if they were mixed. The mass and its liturgies are performed as they are in Catholic churches, as a religious celebration enacted for the benefit of the congregation. Magick is performed by individuals or small groups for the benefit of that individual or group. As my wise lady has so adroitly said, “for them, the mass is a destination, for you, it is just the starting place for working magick.”
Therefore, unlike the various organizations and individuals who have adopted the mass and other liturgies as part of an occult discipline, I don’t see any difference between magick and liturgical rites. That perspective probably comes from my foundation in Witchcraft, where it is often the case that liturgy is blended with magick, and magick becomes liturgy, or as some would say, it becomes “confused” with it. I make no apologies for the way I do things, and in fact, I think that it has given me some advantages. I have rediscovered a tradition and a methodology that is quite new, but also very old. For me, the mass and its various ancillary rites are the starting point for all of my major magickal workings.
Still, in functioning as a witch, ritual magician and a gnostic bishop, I have brought all three of these disciplines together into a single avocation, which is what I call the “Magician as Sacramental Technician.” These methodologies are tightly integrated into the manner that I invoke spirits, angels, demons, and various gods, goddesses and demi-gods. The use of the Mass to generate the requisite energy to perform exalted ritual workings, and the use of sacraments to sacralize the magick circle and to quicken the manifestation of spirits is likely unprecedented. I know that when I revealed this discreet practice to Stephen Hoeller years ago, he was quite shocked and horrified. As a proper priest it may seem sacrilegious, but from the stand-point of a “nuts and bolts” pagan ritual magician, it isn’t disrespectful or abusive to use sacraments in this fashion - as long as one isn’t playing the role of the proper cleric. In the context of sorcery, all of this is permitted because it is an act of loving and venerating the gods, goddesses and the whole range of the spiritual hierarchy. The flesh and blood of the Godhead is given freely, and the magician as sacramental technician uses it to empower, sacralize and quicken spiritual and magickal processes.
One might ask how I managed to find myself in the situation of being able to mix these roles together. Who would have given me holy orders, knowing that I was a witch, pagan and a ritual magician? Obviously, I had to have gotten an ordination and a consecration at some point in my magickal career from someone who knew what I believed and practiced. These events did indeed happen, although I don’t want to identify the individuals who aided me in this quest. The final elevation to a bishop was both appropriate and done by someone who I have respected and found common purpose with for more than a few decades. My lineage consists of both the Vilatte and Mathew succession of the Old Catholic Church, but the practices that I have employed from that lineage are fully pagan, Hermetic, Gnostic and magickal. The lineage itself is quite important, and I can actually feel and sense the power and authority as well as the responsibility that comes with it. I can see it in my mind as a long line of practitioners going back into the forgotten past. I suspect that I am imagining this connection, whether or not the actual lineage I hold goes back that far (it probably doesn’t). Even so, I sense the long succession of prelates going back in time. Supposedly, this line goes all the way back to Melchizadek himself, and I suppose that in a symbolic and mythic way, it does connect me with that exalted magician and priest. I choose to see things this way, and for me, they are indeed a reality.
Let me now carefully define the nature of the magician priest as a sacramental technician in broader terms, so perhaps my readers can understand this role from a theoretical instead of personal perspective. As I said in the beginning of this article, the magician-priest is a spiritual mediator. We should examine exactly what is meant by that phrase.
A spiritual mediator is a person who has the ability to summon, invoke, assume and communicate as an intermediary to the Godhead, however that aspect of Deity is defined. It is not enough to officiate at liturgical rites where the Deity is invoked and given offerings. A spiritual mediator has the ability to assume that Godhead fully, to allow for a kind of possession, and in that hallowed state, perform actions that manifest the will and essence of that Spirit into the material world. Those actions typically consist of consultation, various kinds of communications (oracular or advisory), and the blessing of material substances so that they become imbued with the spiritual essence of that Deity. The relationship between the priest and the Godhead is one of extreme intimacy, if that priest is truly mediating the Deity. Such an intimate contact would give the priest permission and the authority to act in the name of that Deity, to perform duties and assume obligations that would further the divine will of that Godhead. Thus the priest would know through this close association what is sanctioned and what is forbidden. One would assume that a magician-priest would serve as a mediator to a godhead that allowed magickal work and the use of sacraments to further its greater divine will. To choose a godhead that forbade such work would be completely counterproductive.
Since I am an advocate of working ritual magick while under the assumptive influence of one’s personal godhead, then the act of spiritual mediation is an integral part of it as well. By extension, the use of sacraments and the emanation of spiritual power from that godhead would also be a natural part of that relationship. All I have done is to formalize this relationship by reclaiming the Mass rite and its various ancillary rituals (such as the Benediction) to be aligned to my pagan spiritual beliefs. I found that this transition was pretty easy, since the Tridentine Catholic Mass is saturated with magickal beliefs and practices. So for me, it was a simple matter to bring all of these various practices together into a single magickal discipline.
The historical precedence for a magician priest as prelate or bishop can be found in the very word or term used to define this individual. A magician-prelate is actually a hierophant, which is a Greek term that comes from the words “hiera” - holy, and “phainein” - to show. A hierophant is someone who brings others into the presence of the divine. This is, of course, another way of saying mediator. The hierophant was a title of the chief priest officiating at the Eleusinian Mysteries in antiquity. A hierophant is a master of both the spiritual and material worlds, and has two symbolic keys (one gold, the other silver, tied with a red ribbon) to engage with them at will. As it is said “whatever is bound on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever is loosed on earth, shall be loosed in heaven.” This is a profound magickal statement, since it also ties in with the Emerald Tablet. I feel that the word “Hierophant” is a good title for anyone who is a pagan prelate - for they are a hierophant of the magickal mysteries. The central mystery is the Mass rite, and all other liturgical rites that are associated with it. This central mystery ties in to all of the other mysteries, such as the mystery of life and death.
Then there is the sticky issue of how a pagan can reconstitute what is, essentially, a Judeo-Christian lineage. How can I connect with this line of prelates going into the past when I am not a Christian, or even a Christian apologist? The solution is quite simple, there are different qualities of the lineage entwined together - mine is one that is purely occultic and magickal. Because I have adopted both Hermetic and Gnostic philosophies into what I believe and practice as a pagan and a witch, I would be considered much more a member of that line then one that is in alignment with apostle Peter. My lineage, based as it is on my practices, is therefore, an anti-apostolic line or “succession.” Because the Gnostics and Hermeticists were considered enemies to the apostolic succession and persecuted as heretics, I find that I am more in alignment with them. Therefore, I would represent the other succession, and I am not at all the first to have this connection. Whenever there have been individuals who received the consecration of a prelate, and who also practiced occultism, paganism or magick, they have been representatives of this succession. There is a long line of these individuals, and Crowley, Wedgwood, Leadbeater, Bertiaux, and many others have been or are members of this unofficial group. I believe that this line is just as valid and important as the more exoteric apostolic succession that comes from Roman Catholicism.
All prelates outside of the apostolic succession are considered auto-cephalus, in other words, they are autonomous and free to establish their congregation and spiritual domain as they see fit. They are completely independent and answer to no one except the Deity that they represent. As such, many prelates in this line seek the more empowering and rewarding paths of occultism and esoteric philosophy, and some have sought out the art of magick and deeper forms of occultism. All of this is valid and properly sanctioned, since the prelate is independent and may seek whatever inspires him or her, or do whatever is necessary to serve the Deity. Therefore, as a prelate and a magician, I may serve my Godhead and do whatever is necessary, allowed or required. I can be a pagan, witch, and a ritual magician without committing apostasy or blaspheme.
Finally, we should discuss what is required of one to function as a priest, prelate and pagan ritual magician. First of all, to become a prelate requires that the candidate receive a proper consecration rite, performed amidst a special votive Mass. These acts by the bishop consist most importantly of the laying on of hands onto the candidate’s head (cheirotonia), and the blowing of the breath (pneuma) on the crown. There is also an application of consecrated balm (anointing) placed on the forehead and the index and thumb of each hand, and the consecration of a special jeweled ring (usually amethyst), which would seem to seal the process. Often the newly installed prelate will be given new vestments to wear, and perhaps even a miter or tiara crown of some kind. Thus a consecration rite would appear to be an intimate and hallowed gift of hands, breath and chrism from the standing bishop to the candidate. Within orthodox circles, two or three bishops are required to consecrate a new bishop, but in the uncanonical circles of occultists and magicians, only one is required. In this manner, the lineage is passed from one prelate to another, as it was in the beginning of the Christian church, and more likely, long before even that time.
The vehicle for the consecration is a Mass rite, said by the Bishop to invoke and make manifest the tangible spirit of the Godhead, so it may descend through the person of the prelate into the body of the candidate. The Mass rite is the key to this whole process, and a candidate prelate must have completely mastered this key before being made a prelate himself. I would require a candidate to write their own high and low mass rites, as well as a Benediction rite and other ancillary rites, as needed. It would also be helpful but not absolutely necessary if the candidate had received a lesser elevation to that of a priest or pontifex, where he or she would function as a practicing mediator while under the authority of the prelate. Once the candidate is consecrated, then he or she is completely independent of any spiritual authority, having become an authority vested and autonomously aligned to a specific godhead.
A priest or pontifex must master the following liturgical practices in order to be considered a proper hierophant. These practices are also incorporated into the core magickal practices, so they would be seamless to one learning the art of ritual magick.
- Performance of the Magickal Mass and its ancillary rites,
- Production of sacraments and their proper use in ritual workings.
- Alignment to a specific Godhead - which would include devotions, spiritual service, invocations, godhead assumption and communion,
- Godhead mediation in all its various forms,
- Acting as the channel for the spiritual mysteries of the specific Godhead,
- Teaching, training and elevating worthy candidates into these mysteries.
As you can see, the assumption of these practices are a seamless addition to the practices of ritual magick. Some of these practices and responsibilities are already a part of the regimen of ritual magick, so it would be a small matter to add a few other practices and skills to complete the process of becoming a fully functioning prelate and ritual magician. I believe that I have fully made the case for you, the reader, to consider whether or not this discipline would be relevant to you. The Order of the Gnostic Star has incorporated the anti-apostolic succession into its degree structure, using it instead of the Masonic system for the conferring of initiations.
Frater Barrabbas
Care Fr Barrabas,
ReplyDeleteThank you for one of the most interesting blog posts I have read in a long time. I hope you forgive my long response which will probably go over two comments :)
I agree with the essence of what you say but from a different perspective. My teacher was a Christian magician who also held Holy Orders and seamlessly blended the priest-magician role. So I think I know where you are coming from. In fact, from my perspective I do not think “magician and priest” is an “obscure role” at all, but the essence of what it means to be a magician.
Theologically of course, the priest does not produce “transubstantiated sacraments” – Christ does, or if we use the term transubstantiation loosely, the particular deity in question. Most orthodox (small ‘o’) views would see this as a crucial difference and cuts to the very heart of the traditional distinction between magical and religious action – in magic our will is paramount and in religion the deity’s will is paramount. This distinction, I think is unworkable and as you say there is evidence traditional theurgists collapsed the distinction. Modern Wicca also collapses this barrier – performing magic is a religious act in Wicca – and this one of the reasons for its great popularity.
However, I think the traditional view does have some merit by showing the need for the magician to go beyond the small self to the transpersonal and therefore into the realms of compassion and love.
The use of sacraments as magical tools, or in any way apart from mediating the invisible grace the sacrament refers to, has of course been condemned by the mainstream churches many times over the centuries. That said there is a long tradition of the Host being used this way for everything from curing foot and mouth disease to finding treasure. While personally I find this troublesome, I can see why these practices came about..
I think there is definitely something in what you say about the intended audience for medieval ceremonial magic – if they were not clerics, they were certainly (heterodox) Christians. The magical and Masonic based fraternities were mostly influenced by Enlightenment philosophies with their anti-clerical bias and perhaps this is why, as you note the “the need for the services of a priest was completely forgotten”.
I would love to know more about your theology of invocation, Frater :) I think there is an subtle but interesting distinction between modern magical understandings of invocation and traditional Christian sacramental theology. Modern magical invocation seems best summed up by comments such as John Michael Greer’s, where he sees the Gods as formulas to access universal forces. Or by a comment left on Nick Farrell’s blog stating the angels were “mechanical structures” rather than living beings.
In this view, the magician does the correct inner work and accesses these structures and formulae to produce the effects required via invocation. The traditional understanding of the Institution of the Eucharist however is different. Christ is not a mechanical structure and he cannot be invoked, as he is always present. Christ is not invoked ‘into’ the bread; the bread mysterious BECOMES Christ as a visible representation of Christ’s immanent presence. In Christian theology the grace of Christ is always here around us, not needing to be invoked. Sacraments simply help us access this grace.
Personally, I am not sure how I could perform a Mass and then use the Grace it makes available to then invoke in the modern magical manner of pulling down mechanically structured angels. The two approaches just jar to me. This is why I would like to know more of your theology of invocation – and if you see angels and other beings in this “mechanical structure” way, how you reconcile the two approaches.
continued...
I agree fully with your symbolic and mythic approach to your lines of succession. Regardless of the lack of clarity as to the regularity of the Vilatte and Matthew lines, they can still function on this level and provide an important spiritual link.
ReplyDeleteFr, if I understand you correctly, you write about the entwining of Christian and “purely occultic and magical” threads within the Christian rites and lineage. I am unclear as to what exactly you mean here. From a traditional Christian perspective what may appear magical in the Mass is a misunderstanding of the nature of the Mass. For example, my description of how Christ cannot magically be invoked. I am not saying I agree with this, just asking for clarification. When you talk about ‘magical’ qualities, are you referring to a different way of looking at the lineage than orthodox Christian thought, or hidden magical aspects?
Finally, you write, “Whenever there have been individuals who received the consecration of a prelate, and who also practiced occultism, paganism or magick, they have been representatives of this succession. There is a long line of these individuals, and Crowley, Wedgwood, Leadbeater, Bertiaux, and many others have been or are members of this unofficial group. I believe that this line is just as valid and important as the more exoteric apostolic succession that comes from Roman Catholicism.”
Sadly, the individuals you mention do not, to me, show the compassionate, wise and healthy spiritual qualities one expects from a priest or a magician. Then again, it is the same with most Christian clerics, though there are many wonderful and compassionate exceptions. Thanks again for such an interesting post, Frater. :)
I agree fully with your symbolic and mythic approach to your lines of succession. Regardless of the lack of clarity as to the regularity of the Vilatte and Matthew lines, they can still function on this level and provide an important spiritual link.
ReplyDeleteFr, if I understand you correctly, you write about the entwining of Christian and “purely occultic and magical” threads within the Christian rites and lineage. I am unclear as to what exactly you mean here. From a traditional Christian perspective what may appear magical in the Mass is a misunderstanding of the nature of the Mass. For example, my description of how Christ cannot magically be invoked. I am not saying I agree with this, just asking for clarification. When you talk about ‘magical’ qualities, are you referring to a different way of looking at the lineage than orthodox Christian thought, or hidden magical aspects?
Finally, you write, “Whenever there have been individuals who received the consecration of a prelate, and who also practiced occultism, paganism or magick, they have been representatives of this succession. There is a long line of these individuals, and Crowley, Wedgwood, Leadbeater, Bertiaux, and many others have been or are members of this unofficial group. I believe that this line is just as valid and important as the more exoteric apostolic succession that comes from Roman Catholicism.”
Sadly, the individuals you mention do not, to me, show the compassionate, wise and healthy spiritual qualities one expects from a priest or a magician. Then again, it is the same with most Christian clerics, though there are many wonderful and compassionate exceptions. Thanks again for such an interesting post, Frater. :)
@Peregrin - thank you for your post. Unfortunately, my magickal work with the Mass is not driven by theology, doctrine or dogma - so there isn't anything to share there. I see the Mass as a magickal ritual, and you can look over my previous blog on the Tridentine Mass. I have no problems performing the Mass and then immediately following it with invocation - they are not mechanical processes to me, but organic and full of Spirit. As for my list of prelates, whatever you thing of them personally, they were/are occultists and bishops one and the same. I did not list them as any kind of model for one to follow, of course. Since I myself belong to this line, perhaps I might be a better representative.
ReplyDeleteJust a note to say that this (wonderful) post brought strongly to mind C.W. Leadbeater's "The Science of the Sacraments", which goes into great detail about the energetic constructs that are erected and flows of power that take place during the 7 Sacraments (the Mass in particular).
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I'd never once felt a pull to attend a Mass until I'd read this (admittedly dense) book. After reading it it's easy to see how it could be used in the ways you mention.
Care Frater Peregrin,
ReplyDeleteThank you for this most enlightening comment.
It is exemplary of your Buddhist faith - oops sorry - I mean Pagan - oops sorry - I guess I should mean Christian - faith ...
... and begs the question what faith you ACTUALLY profess? Or if perhaps - whether than actual FAITH - you instead prefer the mere splitting of Theological hairs?
Regards,
David Griffin