Welcome to The Beast Bay General Thelema Science Art Scholarship The Beast Bay website
 up a level
 search
 main


  On the Bloody Eucharist
Magick Posted by David R. Jones on March 26, 2000 @ 10:07 AM
from the communionist-manifesto dept.

This mystery is quite interesting. The Book of the Law clearly indicates that the Cakes should be burnt. This would seem to be an oblique reference to the Phoenix. Now if a cake is made with living ingredients and burnt, then these cakes ground and distributed into a larger batch, they could be revivified by the formula of contagion. Id est a new cake containing fresh element or elements from the Priest and Priestess could be used in the ritual of the Mass, in either form, and (in the Gnostic form) if a common cup is then used, the life of the sacrament will be passed to the cake eaten within the body of the congregant when the ritual wine is consumed with the cake, likewise the blood of the conjurer will vivify the form in the Phoenix. In both cases the cakes would be literally transubstantiated. Note how the Gnostic form fulfills the Pelican formula as in "feeding her young." Note also that the cup can be used to fill other cups and still retain the formula, but the congregants cannot be served from the bottle directly, if the details of the Gnostic Mass only have been maintained. Thus does life both rise from the ashes and feed her young.

For those who are interested, the formula of the Phoenix has the authority of Clement who was after Peter primate of Rome: I Clement XXV.




<  |  >

 

  Related Links
  • Articles on Magick
  • Also by David R. Jones
  • Contact author
  • The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.


    Re: On the Bloody Eucharist
    by Michael Sanborn on Sunday March 26, @10:17AM
    This is a very evocative picture: a lucid doctrine corresponding to a particular mode of performing the Gnostic Mass. While it makes a lot of sense to me, I wouldn't want to go so far as to saying that other practical variants wouldn't be equally valid. For me, though, this piece shows the value of mapping practice to a coherent doctrinal construction. I would hope that it would encourage similar theoretical frameworks to be made for other variants on the issue.

    Do you have a link or a quotation from Clement?

    • Re: On the Bloody Eucharist
      by Diancecht on Wednesday March 29, @07:54AM
      Baudelaire possesses a unique perspective on the issue in his Little Poems in Prose. Perhaps relying more on the quote 'stir not up fire with the sword' he hast used intoxication and the intelligences for its fuel. Though equally, go not in the public way. Stop not at the threshold!


    • Re: On the Bloody Eucharist
      by David R. Jones on Wednesday March 29, @05:07PM
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

      I was exceedingly pleased to see that you have posted my discourse to beastbay. I do think that it solves various metaphysical controversies that have recently arisen while, in actuality, explicating the symbols in a clearer fashion than previously put forth. We are after all “Catholics” in the sense that we are concerned with the physicality of the sacrament and its treatment, and not just with its symbolic role. This is made clear by the prophet in his discourses on the nature of the sacraments, the magical link, the Mass of the Holy Ghost etc.

      Love is the law, love under will.


    Re: On the Bloody Eucharist
    by Phygelus on Monday March 27, @11:24AM

    I Clement XXV can be read at http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm

    Clement is really pretty good.


    Re: On the Bloody Eucharist
    by Michael Miller on Monday April 03, @04:06AM
    Dear Dr. David R. Jones,

    Do What Thou Wilt Shall be the Whole of the Law.

    Ave! It's nice to hear from you! Like Gaul, my comments naturally divide themselves into three parts:

    1) I was around in the Vulgar Year 1993 when the current controversy concerning the Cakes of Light first hit the fan. I am impressed by your intellectual tap-dancing-on-a-sinking-ship-while-deftly-avoiding-slipping-in-the-vomit-of-the-other-passengers routine, but I regret to tell you that your Ship is nevertheles sinking.

    Are you seriously proposing that the current Ruling concerning the Cakes of Light is preferable to the previous Dispensation, which Was, As the Mass Team Wills?

    Is it really more "Magickally-Correct" to have the original Elements "reconstituted" in the stomachs of the Communicants, via contagion, rather than have them get there by the more usual, direct means? As far as I can understand your argument, you seem to be saying that the "revivifying" Element--the One Thing Un-Tainted by the Burntness of the Other Cakes--is the saliva of the priest on the edge of the cup after he communicates. Is this your "Formula of the Phoenix"? If so, then I'd rather have a good, old-fashioned Heretical Liber XV any day.

    To quote the doctrinal Theories of a Pope to buttress this sagging and decrepit Excuse for a Magickal Doctrine does not add any merit to it in my eyes. I personally have been a Jew, a Hindu, and a Pagan, and, like many others, came to the Thelemic Communion without ever having been sullied by the Lies of the Black Brothers. I do not need a Dead Pope to tell me how to make a Pagan-Egyptian-Thelemic Cake of Light.

    I have heard three-hundred and thirty-three quasi-Magickal arguments for why it should be more correct to make the Cakes of Light according the current Dispensation. In My Exalted Opinion, not a single one has made sense or borne the slightest degree of critical scrutiny. There should and can be only one plausible--or possible--reason for making the Cakes the way we are currently being asked to make them. And that reason is:

    "We're sorry. Our lawyers say we have to make them this way."

    2) On a sunnier note, I wish to inform you that I'm currently working on an essay called "Seven Ways to do Resh." I seem to remember spending an event-filled 24 hours with you, in which we did four Reshes together. With your permission, I would like to add "The Resh of Dr. Jones" to the list I already have. These include: Aleister's Resh, Grady's Resh, Rusty's Resh, Prison Resh, and Resh of the Magicians. Please feel free to communicate with me at: bankjobman@aol.com.

    3) In the spirit of Brother Xnoubis and Brother AShub's discussion about Thelema as Open Source, would you consider publishing Your Definitive, Rectified Enochian Tablets somewhere on the Net, so that if we go crazy, we can at least all go crazy together?

    PS. An old friend of yours, Soror Faustina was staying with us for a while. I'm sure she sends her Love.

    PPS. Whereahellveya been all this time?

    PPPS. According to something I came across in an old OTO Newsletter(concerning a correlation of Degrees with Grades), the woman snoring next to me as I write this is considered a "de-facto Master of the Temple." However, she does not appear to know this. Is it possible that someone can be a MotT and not know it? Any thoughts?

    Love is the Law, Love Under Will.

    Michael Miller

    aka

    bankjobman.

    <{: )}>

    • Re: On the Bloody Eucharist
      by the Reverend Rob on Tuesday April 04, @11:00PM
      >To quote the doctrinal Theories of a Pope to
      >buttress this sagging and decrepit Excuse for a
      >Magickal Doctrine does not add any merit to it in
      >my eyes.

      In a system devoted in no small part to Judeo-Christian mysteries, how is the doctrine of a Pope irrelevant?

      > I personally have been a Jew, a Hindu, and a
      >Pagan, and, like many others, came to the
      >Thelemic Communion without ever having been
      >sullied by the Lies of the Black Brothers.



      Exactly who are these Black Brothers, and what personally verifiable reference do you have to their existence, let alone their truth or falsehood of whatever doctrine they might be preaching?



      >I do not need a Dead Pope to tell me how to make
      >a Pagan-Egyptian-Thelemic Cake of Light.



      Then why do you need Aiwass or Crowley or Thelema at all?


      • Re: On the Bloody Eucharist
        by Michael Miller on Wednesday April 05, @03:12AM
        Do What Thou Wilt Shall be the Whole of the Law.

        Who the f**k are you? And what system of "Judeo-Christian Mysteries" are you refering to? The word, Judeo-Christian holds no operative meaning for me.

        There is Judaism, there is Christianity, and there is Thelema. My Lady and I practice Those Portions of Judaism Which Appeal Personally to Us, and Those Portions of Thelema which Appeal Personally to Us. My Lady is Shirine, co-founder with Grady Louis McMurtry, of the Caliphate OTO. She and I do not practice any aspect of Christianity, since we can find no aspect of this Old-Aeon Cult of the Dying God which holds any appeal to us.

        I use the term "Black Brothers" to refer to this Cult of the Dying God, as did Crowley. Are you in fact asking me for evidence that the Catholic Church exists? If so, you are asking me to enter into a level of Ontology which no Being who is communicating with me under any remotely plausibly mutually-intelligible circumstances should ask.

        We (she and I) use the Gnostic Mass, Liber Resh, the practice of saying Will before meals, the Afro-Brazilian practices known as Umbanda, certain Tibetan Buddhist practices, and the Hebrew Friday Night Shabbat Ceremony, because each of these spiritual practices resonates with our personal conception of the Sacred. We use Crowley, Thelema, and Aiwaz, because we like Crowley, Thelema, and Aiwaz. We also run a de-Facto Profess-House of the Order (see Liber 101, in Equinox III 10 and elsewhere) which, however, you are not invited to, since you are obviously such a jerk.

        Any other questions?

        Love is the Law, Love Under Will,

        Michael Miller

        aka Bankjobman,

        Preceptor-General of the New Reformed Orthodox Order of Chassidic Thelemites (NROOChTh)

        and

        II degree OTO (suspended)

        <{: )}>


        • Re: On the Bloody Eucharist
          by the Reverend Rob on Thursday April 06, @02:02AM
          >Who the f**k are you?


          Absolutely no one of consequence.


          >And what system of "Judeo-Christian Mysteries"
          >are you refering to?


          Probably something to do with that pesky Christ fellow in relation to Thelema, but that's right..we're dark and spooky Thelemites afraid of the light of the Son. I digress.


          >I use the term "Black Brothers" to refer to this Cult
          >of the Dying God, as did Crowley.


          Interesting theory, particularly in light of _Magick without Tears, Chapter 12, in which Crowley associates the Black Brother as an individual who has attained the grade of Adeptus Exemptus and falls from grace, so to speak (New Falcon edition, page 109, for those who want to look at dead trees). Nowhere in the chapter or other descriptions of the "Black Brother" archetype is this mentioned as far as I am aware, and such assertions fall in the face of Crowley's embrace of Christianity as representative of the central truth upon which his system of magick and philosophy is based. If you require additional proof, please reference in particular John St. John.


          It's one thing altogether to devise a system, and another thing altogether to put words and ideas that aren't present in the dead bald guy's mouth.




        • Re: On the Bloody Eucharist
          by the Reverend Rob on Thursday April 06, @02:02AM
          >Who the f**k are you?


          Absolutely no one of consequence.


          >And what system of "Judeo-Christian Mysteries"
          >are you refering to?


          Probably something to do with that pesky Christ fellow in relation to Thelema, but that's right..we're dark and spooky Thelemites afraid of the light of the Son. I digress.


          >I use the term "Black Brothers" to refer to this Cult
          >of the Dying God, as did Crowley.


          Interesting theory, particularly in light of _Magick without Tears, Chapter 12, in which Crowley associates the Black Brother as an individual who has attained the grade of Adeptus Exemptus and falls from grace, so to speak (New Falcon edition, page 109, for those who want to look at dead trees). Nowhere in the chapter or other descriptions of the "Black Brother" archetype is this mentioned as far as I am aware, and such assertions fall in the face of Crowley's embrace of Christianity as representative of the central truth upon which his system of magick and philosophy is based. If you require additional proof, please reference in particular John St. John.


          It's one thing altogether to devise a system, and another thing altogether to put words and ideas that aren't present in the dead bald guy's mouth.




    • Chill already!
      by Michael Sanborn on Wednesday April 05, @04:46PM
      Yipe! While I was too busy settling into my new job to monitor the site, the level of conversation around here has (IMHO) shockingly declined. Up until now, I had been hoping we could avoid the inexcusable rudeness that characterizes most Thelemic forums. Maybe with a little more diligence, we can still get things back in shape.

      First of all, Mr. Miller, the current controversy, if there even is one, is not the same as the one that broke out in 1993. Secondly, I think David's article (which I understand in a completely different way from you, apparently) addresses a nuance of doctrine, rather than politics, whereas I find your response to be political (and hardly nuanced). The greatest tragedy is that there was an elegance to the original article in what was left unsaid, that now has to be made more explicit in order to (hopefully) clear up potential misunderstanding.

      And then -- why must we be insulting to one another? Differences of opinion can be expressed in a respectful way that encourages true communication. It's particularly poignant in this case, since it's clear to me that the stance you're railing against bears no relation to what the piece actually says.

      Also, there is a component of your comment which is a rather ham-fisted protest against the administration of a certain Thelemic Order. Certainly, this is very true to the spirit of 1993. But one thing has been amply illustrated in the intervening time: Crowley designed his Orders to be administered from the top down, this is the way they're administered, and denigrating the administration does not encourage reform.

      Similarly, I find your response to the Reverend Rob's pithy comment to be genuinely distressing. Please, Michael, try to get into the habit of putting aside your comments for 24 hours and looking at them again in the cool light of reason before posting them and setting such an example as this.


    Re: On the Bloody Eucharist
    by Marfiza on Thursday April 13, @05:20PM
    Thelema.

    Re: Clement and the Phoenix.

    Interesting! That's the first time I've read an account of the phoenyx life-cycle that didn't include burning. On the other hand, the newly-fledged phoenix's flight to Heliopolis to deposit the nest of old phoenix bones and incense resins etc could be deemed significant by travellers from Corinth and Mitylene...

    Oh yeah: regarding the usefulness of Papal pronouncements to Thelemites: everything can be useful, Michael, as your own magickal practice demonstrates. Whether or not it actually is useful to one individual or another is entirely up to that individual to discover, and if someone finds the writings of Christian patriarchs illustrative and enlightening, who are we to say them nay?

    That being said, there is no usefulness in Xian-bashing, or bashing any other spiritual method for that matter; time spent dissing the other guy is time wasted not discovering and doing my will.

    ObEucharist: What do y'all think "thick leavings of red wine" means? I have mine own opinion, but I'm interested to hear others'...

    Agape,

    - Marfiza

    • Re: On the Bloody Eucharist
      by AShTON VQ'QL on Saturday April 15, @10:27AM
      Re: "...thick leavings of red wine..."

      In my current opinion, the "thick" part seems like the leftover spent/stagnant yeast at the bottom of a wine fermentation vessle that brewer's shops are now calling "slurry". What other part of a wine is both "thick" (which the slurry defintely is) and can be considered "leavings"? Taken further, if the left over yeast is the stuff alluded to, it could also be used to get the cake dough to rise a bit before baking if reactivated properly.

      The above is according to recent research and inquiry, I have not yet tried the technique but plan to. I welcome comments that others may have regarding this technique.

      To date, I have either used the `boil-down' method (where the wine is boiled until a thicker sort of `syrup' is left over after the process) or the `find some sludge at the bottom' of a bottle of wine that is bought at a store, and use that after straining.

      As an added aside: I always start the baking time of Cakes at 418*F for 11 minutes and then adjust time and temperature from there ;-)


      • Re: On the Bloody Eucharist
        by Diancecht on Saturday April 15, @12:50PM
        First and foremost. "One" (ha!) many bash certain and specific religions because they do indeed "restrict" or keep one from seeking True spiritual enlightenment. So one's "time wasted" as alluded to above is a mass scale here on earth.

        As you see
        Now. What we have are Thick leavings of red wine. Is this home ec class or magick? Nay. It's silence and secrecy. the monotonous billy-wracky!

        Grow up already! Take up arms and battle! Spread the good word!


      • Re: On the Bloody Eucharist
        by Madame Voltaire on Tuesday February 27, @07:58PM
        However in alchemy, wine is considered at one "semen" and it could represent "thick leavings of semen" which indeed are semen itself, not used in procreative purposes. Also it could mean menstral blood itself as that is also symbolic of wine, also it could be "wine" meaning the blood of the Saints, or thick leavings being blood after war, or a bloodbath.


    • Re: On the Bloody Eucharist
      by Jeffrey Sommer on Monday July 17, @01:02AM
      93, y'all! Just a few thoughts...I like the well-reasoned and interesting comment of David on the Sacrament. However, Linus was Pope after Peter; Clement followed Linus. I think that the use of Clement's writings is a demonstration that David's theory has a historical precedence. No judgement need be made on the religious validity of Roman Catholicism!
      Also, the leavings of a vintage port seems best to me, but reduced red wine is so widely used, it has the authority of tradition behind it.
      Personally, I have noticed several people becoming extremely agitated by the 1993e.v. ruling, but I am not one of them. I think, magically speaking, David is correct. If it merely a matter of aesthetics, well, nothing lasts forever. If you insist that David is wrong, what you do privately is your own business. 93, 93/93.


      • Re: On the Bloody Eucharist
        by David R. Jones on Sunday August 20, @10:56PM
        Do what thou wilt
        Shall be the whole of the Law.

        cari all

        Now that my article has magikally reappeared on beastbay and the controversy has died down a bit I would like to add a few further comments. Thank you Jeff you are quite right on the order of the Popes of course, something that has been pointed out to me subsequently. An interesting issue is that there is considerable linguistic evidence that Clement also wrote the canonical book of Hebrews. His word usage and grammatical structure match the text better than any know NT author or Church father in fact the matches are quite high.

        PS For those of you who have not been made aware I have been accepted back into the good graces of our Order and I wish to thank all of you who have put in a good word for me, esp. the mighty web master of the Beastbay himself Michael.

        Love is the law, love under will.

        David R. Jones aka ^333^ at #OTO on Undernet


    Re: On the Bloody Eucharist
    by sam brims on Monday August 13, @10:24PM
    it all seems very interesting but could anybody help me out with some possible links between the eucharist and the symbol of the bleeding pelican?



    The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.


        "As St. Paul says, 'Without shedding of blood there is no remission,' and who are we to argue with St. Paul?" -- Aleister Crowley
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster.
    [ home | search ]