Performance notes on the Gnostic Mass

VIII.
Of the Mystic Marriage
and the Consummation of the Elements.

The Priestess is still holding the Cup, Paten and Lance as before.

T.S. (later): But see remarks at end of s. VI.  On that reading, she has the Paten in her left hand, the cup in her right and her arms uncrossed so the Paten is on the Priest's right; the Priest is holding the Lance.

She switches it from one hand to the other.

T.S. (later): Unless, as suggested above, she switched them during the consecration of the wine.  If the Priest took back the Lance before the start of the Anthem, he should give it to the Priestess about now as he will shortly need both hands.

O.B.: If she’s already got it in her right hand this instruction would be redundant.

T.S.: <sarcasm>And of course there are no redundant instructions in Liber XV.</sarcasm>

He uncovers it with his left hand and puts the cover down on the altar.

O.B. / T.S.: As he is still holding the Paten, this requires that the Host be of size and consistency to break with one hand.  The obvious way to do this would involve pushing the thumb between index and medius.  Skill at manipulating playing cards and prestidigitation generally would be useful to ensure the broken Host does not end up in the cup or on the floor.  Scoring down the middle of the cake might help as well.

T.S. (later): Or you could simply put the paten down at this point.  Even if you can manage the initial manipulations of the biscuit single-handed, you really could use the extra free hand for the next bits.

Since the Priest has the cup in his left hand and the paten in his right, this probably means he pushes the cup up while the Priestess pushes the Lance point down.

T.S.: But see remark above.  On the basis that the broken bit of biscuit is unlikely to stay stuck to the end of the pointy stick, the Priest should probably use his right hand to hold it in place.

O.B.: You could do it, provided the cakes were sticky enough (or if they're spongy and the Lance is sharp enough).

T.S.: In which case it might indeed be possible to keep a hold of the Paten throughout this part... hmm, but if the host is of a suitable consistency as you suggest to stick to the end of the Lance this might make breaking it etc. one-handed as above a bit tricky.  Not sure how we’d get round that.

The Priest releases the Cup and takes back the Lance with his left hand, the Priestess uses her left hand to cover the Cup.  She should then take back the Paten and the Lance; this also makes sense of the instruction for the Priest to take back the Lance after the next speech and again ensures the Priest is not holding it when striking his breast; the Priestess holds the cup, paten and lance as before.

T.S. (later): If necessary the Priestess can just leave the paten and cup on the altar.  Some practitioners though prefer not to do this (postings on GnosticMass Yahoo! group, August 2003 e.v.).

She puts the cup down before doing this.  In this instance, “offers the Paten” does not mean that the Priest takes it.

The Priestess puts the Paten down on the Altar.

She takes it in her left hand.

He takes it in his right hand.

T.S.: He then gets out of the way so that the people can communicate.  There is no universally agreed practice on where he should stand.

O.B.: One practice that has been seen recently is for him to stand between the font and the tomb, facing the altar; this works visually as it is balanced.

T.S.: Without getting into the argument around this point, round here it is generally considered the Deacon’s job to ensure that those attending are aware of this, or that the Priest and Priestess have no objection to anyone being present and not communicating.

O.B.: To the altar.  i.e. to the top of the steps, where the altar is.

T.S.: So, where are the Elements then?

O.B.: On the altar of course.  This reflects what was said earlier about the Cakes of Light.  This means the Children are at the top of the steps.

T.S.: I have been reasonably reliably informed that in Red Flame 2: Mystery of Mystery a senior member of E.G.C. asserts that the Children should not ascend the steps; we respectfully—reverently, even—disagree with this advice, which in our view cannot reasonably be reconciled with the plain words of the script.

T.S.: The instruction “communicate as did the Priest” seems simple enough, yet there is wide variation in actual practice.  The usual interpretation here is that the communicant receives the elements from the Children or Deacon (in the absence of Children), then ascends the steps (although this order is inconsistent with what is said above) then consumes the elements while facing the Priestess (some also make a cross with the biscuit and cup, in at least one case in my memory someone has gone so far as to use the same words “In my mouth be the essence &c.”), finally turning to face the people with arms crossed, right over left, while making the declaration “There is no part &c.”  I suspect some Priestesses prefer to be able to make eye contact with communicants, and some of them normally wear glasses so have difficulty doing so when the communicant is at the other end of a five-foot dais.

O.B.: Some people read the instruction regarding the words as meaning that only the words “There is no part &c.” are spoken by the communicants.

T.S.: Later – it now seems more common that in the absence of Children (which will usually mean no more than three communicants) the Priestess hands the elements directly to the communicant at the altar, while the Deacon stays in his station and motions the punters up in turn.  Since our current steps are in a serious state of disrepair, we still have the Children standing at the base of the steps, each in line with the matching pillar, to hand the elements to communicants before they ascend.  The issue may come up again when the steps are finally replaced.  Some people stand when consuming the elements, some kneel.

T.S.: Still later – I have been reasonably reliably informed (posting on GnosticMass Yahoo! list, August 2003 e.v.) that there is a specific rule of EGC-USA (possibly in force internationally, I do not have access to the relevant version of the EGC handbook) that in the event of there being no Children, the congregation receive the elements from the Deacon.  [Ranting by T.S. about the EGC hierarchy deleted.]

T.S.: Later later.  The above should perhaps be contextualised.  There is regional variation in custom within the U.K. on whether the congregation ascend the steps to communicate.  It is almost universal in the Yorkshire groups since I have been involved that one does so; but apparently (personal communications) in other groups it is not customary.  While it is my personal view that having people communicate at the bottom of the steps cannot be reconciled with the plain words of the script, it has been pointed out that in larger groups (i.e. where the congregation is regularly well into double figures) this part of the ceremony may need to be expedited in one way or another if it is not to take longer than the rest of the ritual put together.  At large events where the congregation may get into three figures, the “one by one” may need to be discarded and additional servers, sub-deacons &c. drafted in for crowd control.  This issue was slightly confused in the above with the advice in Red Flame 2: Mystery of Mystery that the Children should not ascend the steps at any time (while at one specific point it is mandated that they await below, generally I do not believe this can be reconciled with the plain words of the script in particular the direction at the end of section V).  This latter, in my understanding, was advanced as a personal opinion by Sabazius or Helena and not an official ruling on practice.  Actual practice within the U.S., as far as I am aware, is similarly subject to regional variation on both points.

O.B.: Do these exclude the Priest?

T.S.: What difference if any is meant between “communicate” and “partake” in the above?

T.S.: At this point, the people depart.

Notes to this section with no specific credit were written up by O.B. and T.S. but based on earlier work by Soror P. and Frater D.I.C.E.; similarly with the notes in previous sections around the interaction between the Priest and Priestess with the Lance and other tat.  Neither Soror P. nor Frater D.I.C.E. necessarily currently agree with all such notes, though.

General remarks by T.S.

Since many of the practical interpretations of the ritual described above involve interaction between two or more officers, or otherwise require co-ordination between different people, if they are to be adopted then they should be agreed on and for preference practised beforehand.

It is my view that, as good as A.C.’s visualisation skills may have been, it is apparent on close examination that Liber XV was never revised based on actual performance prior to the MTP publication (it is not clear that it was performed at all prior to Agapé Lodge in the 1930s, or that Crowley ever participated in or even attended an actual performance).

Previous section Back to introduction

Back to index of writings and art.

Return to main page.