THE ARCANE ARCHIVE
	a cache of usenet and other text files pertaining to occult, mystical, and spiritual subjects.

To: thelema93-l@hollyfeld.org
From: Mae Tang 
Subject: Re: Gnostic and/or Black Mass
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 15:40:07 +0000 (GMT)

93,

On Tue, 26 Nov 1996, Rodney Orpheus wrote:

> >From:        solis, solis@HEVANET.COM
> 
> >Personally, (in otherwords, IMO) turning ones back on the Priestess to
> >state that "There is no part of me that is not of the gods" is doing
> >both, Priestess and participant a great disservice.  If the Priestess
> >and communicant are doing their jobs correctly, turning ones back ruins
> >the experience of the communicant looking into the eyes of the goddess;
> >and from the Priestesse's point of view, she'll not experience looking
> >at the Hadit in the communicant.

I've been to and in Masses where the congregation communicated and
declared that to the Priestess, and to one mass where it was done to the
rest of the congregation. From my perspective doing Priestess (IMO! IMO!
;)), I've always really liked the former. I think part of that is a sense
of intimacy between the communicant and the Priestess. For me, it has
something to do with a sense of personal epiphany, which seems heightened
by that simultaneous intimacy and revelation. Or, at the best of time, I
feel a sense of vunerability and wonder ignited in that trust. 

I personally wouldn't take offense if I was doing Priestess, and the
communicant declared Old Faithful to the congregation, but I feel that
it's always good to have both options at hand. Since no two people will
feel the same when communicating (I guess), I think it's nice that there
shoud be variations availble so people get to choose what works best for
them.

Speaking as a communicant, declaring and consuming the host / wine before
the Priestess is something that I find special, in the same way as I've
outlined above. Some of (IMO) the best Priestess I have seen have had
wonderful things to offer in that face-to-face. I've seen them radiate a
deep joy and peace; a kind of wonderful love and happiness that just beams
out, or something of a sense of humour; like a private joke shared in a
playful universe. I know I wax subjective and poetical, but it's something
that has deeply moved me since the first mass I attended.

Communicating and declaring to the congregation was OK too, and did have
it's own distinction, and I can see it working well for some people and
some Priestesses, but speaking for myself, I know what I generally
prefer.

> He rises, takes the Lance, and turns to the PEOPLE.
> 
> The PRIEST: There is no part of me that is not of the Gods.
> 
> 
> 
> The PEOPLE communicate as did the PRIEST, uttering the same words in an 
> attitude of Resurrection

Ah-ha! But then if we're going to do the by-the-letter argument, then have
you noticed the discrepancies in the Mass, where the Priest would need
four hands to manage host / wine and lance? What about the confusion over
the Priestess's 3.5 circumambulations (raising Kundalini, etc) as  
described by AC (even _3:10_ has 2 different diagrams of _that)? That bit
where the Priest is supposed to have taken the lance back from the
Priestess and she's still holding it lines later? The problem of who
covers the Cup? How the Priestess can be holding the Cup in her left hand,
Paten in right, and still have the Priest mark the crosses on those in the
correct order?

I've seen Priests make crosses with the lance, and crosses with their
hands where the text ain't clear; I've seen variations on how people hold
things, when they hold things, where they stand, how they read / perform
various texts, etc. I've heard of "single white robe" being interpreted as
the Priest goes naked, and so on.

Or, I personally come down on the side of variations and individual
interpretations. I think there's no harm in choosing an "official" version
of the Mass, for referance. What would get my goat (in more ways than
one! ;)) is if that became the _only_ version we could do. Like, a
nightmare vision of lances and cups, sizes of Priestesses ;), and
furniture being standardised, etc. For me, the letter of it is important,
and is valuable, but I feel that the spirit of the thing is perhaps what's
most vital. 

> Seems fairly clear to me that the communicant should therefore have his 
> back to the Priestess during this section. Makes sense to me too, since I 
> see no point in the communicants telling the Priestess how they feel, 
> it's the rest of the world that needs to be told...

If if works for you, fine. I worry about that "should" somewhat, but
hey--- that's your opinion! ;) My feeling is that since the rest of the
world is also going to communicate / has communicated, that they'd
probably ah... know already and personally, actually. ;) But that's just
me.


93 93/93
Mae
Mary Magdalene / 974

----- End of forwarded message from Mae Tang -----