![[tmbchr]™](/journal/popocculture-blog-logo.jpg){kind=logo}
Are Gnostics Just Fake Catholics?
I like this rant by Mar Didymos on his Illuminism blog. He points out that many people who claim to be gnostics today (neo-gnostics) are essentially just re-naming regular Catholic (and orthodox) elements, and pretending like they have something new, different and vibrant. He explains:
Many modern gnostics are having an identity crisis. While they claim to be gnostic they perform slightly altered versions of the Tridentine Mass used by the Roman Catholic Church prior to Vatican II. In fact one gnostic states emphatically on one website that his “Mass and other Sacraments resemble those of the orthodox churches in their style and form…” Furthermore many modern gnostics have merely replaced the conventional religious terminology of God or the Father with the Secret Father and Heaven for Pleroma. The Holy Spirit is something which they don’t usually bother to substitute. Furthermore, they subscribe to Orthodox Christian pantheism meaning that God is “within” all creation with the exchange of Jesus Christ for the Indwelling Christos. This Indwelling Christos is inside us all and that all we need to do is look within us to find “God.”
On one level, this does seem like a great critique of a modern emerging spiritual movement. But at the same time, how many religious groups ever really use completely original material? I would wager that the number is next to none. Christianity itself has always borrowed heavily from other traditions - Judaism, paganism, Mithraism, Zoroastrianism, etc. How much worth is there in this line of criticism after all? Why is a religion with new or original ideas necessarily better or worse than old stand-bys? Is there any such thing as a “new” original religious idea when we’re all pulling from the same well of archetypes and human experience?
At the same time though, I’m kind of torn because something about the quote above really resonates for me. There are a lot of modern gnostics forming churches and so on, but it still doesn’t appeal to me. I mean, just because you throw the word “gnostic” in front of it, well hell, it’s still a church! And that’s never much interested me. So what alternatives do spiritual people to have to forming churches, and all the often weird and silly trappings such things entail?
February 3rd, 2006 at 3:34 pm
well, a couple of comments.
speaking as someone who’s had some experience with ecclesiastial gnosticism, i can definitely say that the eg’s liturgy is different from traditional catholic liturgies in spirit, if not in form. in general, though, it’s not because the originators of gnostic mass were attempting to just stick sophia into traditional catholic masses somewhere. instead, they’d most likely argue that the gnostic rituals were truer to the original than the catholic mass, which wasn’t really even codified until very late in church history (and then turned on its head by vatican two). they worked with what they had, and, as someone who has participated in such liturgy, i can pretty unequivocably state that it works just fine.
fact is, the oldest descriptions of christian liturgy we have (unless one wants to count the last supper itself) are more along the lines of eastern orthodox liturgy, or even coptic orthodox liturgy, than catholic liturgy. they’re all based on interpretations of the events of the last supper peppered with prior mystery traditions about the dying/resurrected deity. as far as surviving gnostic ritual, well, there’s a lot of it that’s not necesarily eucharistic in nature that many modern gnostics would find . . . well, really freaky, basically, like the books of ieou or melchedizik. many of the surviving gnostic rituals look nothing whatever like any of the rituals used by modern gnostic communities.
i also take issue with mar didymos’s statement that “In order to understand the focus of gnosticism we have to seek its earliest descriptions.” this seems anathema to the idea that gnosis occurs here and now, within the eternal present.
that said, i notice that mar didymos’s own liturgy for his thomasine church is also structurally similar to traditional liturgy, and his aesthetic is distinctly eastern orthodox in form. i find it curious that he’s so quick to judge other gnostic liturgy when most other modern gnostics would be perfectly satisfied to allow the thomasine church its own idiosyncracies without the need for ‘rants.’
February 3rd, 2006 at 3:40 pm
Excellent point. I’m quite tired of all the “more gnostic than you” arguments, myself.
February 3rd, 2006 at 4:01 pm
[…] 3, 2006: : jpgnosis, spirituality
Is Modern Gnostic Liturgy wrong-headed?
Tim points out a rant by Mar Didymos of the Thomasine Gnostic Chur […]
February 3rd, 2006 at 5:07 pm
At this point, it’s kind of hard to say if Gnosticism borrowed from Christianity, or vice versa. Gnosticism is a bit older than Christianity, after all. Maybe the Christians stole from the Gnostics, and then called them heretics. It’s speculation, I know, but it’s fun speculation.
If Gnosticism is a highly individual experience, then the FORM of the corporate interaction you have doesn’t matter. What does seem to matter is that you have it. You can have a study circle, like the American Gnostic Church of America, Thelemic masses, High church liturgy, low church charisms, and it doesn’t matter. What matters is the emphasis you put on whatever activity you have (and, I think there are certain boundaries as to the kind of activity you have. I don’t think watching CSI will get you very far, but then I’m not very creative.)
Condemning another’s praxis seems counterproductive. If you don’t like church structure, go for a study circle or a book club or something. If you do, go high church or low church or heck go quaker. However, if you look at the thread of Western Spirituality through history, you see certain commonalities in the practice and the outcome that make certain practices more valid than others. Not saying others won’t work, simply that they don’t have the track record.
February 3rd, 2006 at 6:49 pm
Maybe what it boils down to is that it means something different to the Gnostic. Even if the 2 sermons and churches are the same in most of the service, the differences can be telling.
Like football. Here in the states, the run, pass, tackle, and so on, which they do in Europe too, but it’s just a “little different”. That difference seems to make all the difference in the world sometimes.
My jones if Freemasonry, which meets a lot less (most of the time) than church and really has a Gnostic vibe to it.
February 4th, 2006 at 2:42 am
It’s funny, but for some strange reason I feel that I’m both a Catholic and a Gnostic. I don’t believe there are any fundamental differences between us and the orthodox. There’s God, there’s us, and there’s something wicked that’s insinuated itself between us and our home with the Father.
I think Gnostics are a little bolder, though. I wish the Church would just ADMIT Mary is a stand-in for Sophia so we can move on with our lives. But since the orthodox Church has to herd masses of people in various phases of redemption she can’t afford to be bold. I’m also in full accord with her right to defend her dogma with all due rigor against not only religious poachers but modern rationalists.
I just finished watching ‘The Exorcism of Emily Rose,’ and after encountering some pretty dicey spiritual situations myself I’m acutely aware that this is not some game we’re playing here. This is serious stuff with serious consequences. There’s something to be said about collective tradition as well as inward gnosis. This is confusing, but nevertheless a paradox we must live with.
“Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.” (Phillippians 2:12-13)
February 6th, 2006 at 4:37 am
From these comments I feel like people might be missing the greater idea in the backround of Mr.Boucher’s blog.
I almost feel like you’re holding back here. Theres much more to say here and that may be why this statement is getting overlooked. As far as archetypes and human experience goes I do feel like there is room for religious evolution (in my opinion, evolution as in its total deconstruction) with modification of collective symbols and unification of modern thought into the primordial backround.
Dojos.
February 6th, 2006 at 9:04 am
Fraternities.