Concerning our Departure from the Greater Gnostic Community

The communities of the Holy Monastic Order En Deus, the Holy Nicholean Catholic Church, and the Holy Imperial Russian Orthodox Church feel that we must formally separate ourselves from any membership in the greater (and somewhat amorphous) contemporary Gnostic community. As some of you may have been aware, we have been members in good standing with the Universal Church of Autogenes, now called the Universalist Gnostic Communion under the leadership of Bishop Mansell Gilmore and to this day we still feel that the UGC is one of the few Gnostic communities of quality currently in existence. They do hold valid apostolic succession under their bishop and through his inspiration they work very hard to share gnosis with the world. We love Bishop Gilmore dearly and we always will.

Our ministries, however, have come to some realizations concerning the contemporary Gnostic community that have left us deeply saddened and concerned. The following list will provide our followers with each specific reason for our departure. While it should be noted that the Universalist Gnostic Communion, as an institution, has not violated any of the principles we set forth below, the very use of the word “Gnostic” in the classical sense is something we wish to no longer apply to ourselves. We are a Christian ministry. We have always been a Christian ministry in the most orthodox sense of the term, but we have chosen to remain non-dogmatic, making Gnostic churches appealing to us. But as we have grown, we have truly discovered that our special charism is not to attach ourselves to what many in our circles consider to be heretical beliefs.

We are not heretics.

We are not apostates.

We love the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and we wish to heal her wounds. In light of this we offer the following reasons for our solemn decision:

1. We perceive in the greater contemporary Gnostic community a virulent reactionary approach toward the orthodox churches, particularly the Roman Catholic Church. We reject on our own moral principles, and even on the principles espoused by most of the Gnostic community that such frank bigotry is not something we can associate with in good conscience. Further, and as a result of this and other issues, including those outlined below, we feel any formal or even indirect association or affiliation with any Gnostic community at large or in particular inhibits our ability to heal the wounds of the greater One Holy catholic and Apostolic Church. To fail to do so would make it appear to most of those outside the Gnostic community, and in particular those to whom we feel called, that we approve of such bigotry, anger and hatred (whether overt or even unconscious).

2. It has always been our contention that Gnosis never left the Greater Christian Church--it may have been sporadically forgotten, ignored, or repressed, although on occasion (unconsciously) taught and embraced. Our stated mission is not to replace the orthodox churches with a “gnostic system”, but, rather, to help the orthodox churches experience the gnosis they already possess. As such, we feel no new system is needed or required. Instead, we hope to heal the Greater Church from the outside in, recalling to it the teachings it has always held, albeit imperfectly.

3. Further, we perceive, and it seems unable to deny, that the greater contemporary Gnostic community is riddled with religious bigotry and intolerance projected back at the orthodox churches and those who sympathize with their sacred traditions. Our experience in the greater Gnostic dialogue is that the ‘rules’ of Gnostic ‘tolerance’ apply only to those that oppose the Church; anyone who asks the same tolerance for those within the mainstream churches are often ridiculed and chastised. In fact, many Gnostics appear to engage in the very behavior they report to be fighting.

4. Rightly or wrongly, recent history has imbued the word “Gnosticism” with a negative weight of which we have resolved to relieve ourselves for the sake of accurately describing our mission and charism. Again, the greater contemporary Gnostic Community often seems to use words like “heretic” and “apostate” as if it were a badge of honor in some imagined militia against their perceived enemies. We feel this tendency exacerbates an already difficult situation, making healing with the Greater Church impossible, and, frankly, marginalizing the movement unnecessarily. Our goal is to further gnosis---but Gnostics, in our opinion, and as a whole, are making the possibility of gnosis being again accepted by the Greater Church ever more remote. We cannot allow that to happen through any action or inaction of our own.

5. It is clear to us that most, if not all, contemporary Gnostic communities do not wish to be reunited with or recognized by the Mother-Church—far from it. While we see this as unfortunate, we of course respect the right of those individuals to maintain it. Our ministries, however, are only concerned with healing old (and new) wounds, not with cutting deeper ones.

We hope this helps to better define our position. We will continue to speak positively of Gnosis and Gnosticism as a philosophy, but from this point forward, only through the lens of our own authenticity, that is, as Christians. Again, we wish to affirm that these observations are general in nature and do not apply to any one group or institution. As we move forward, we hope that the world will be ready for what we have to share. The time for extremism is over. It is time to heal. Now.

With love and blessings,

Patriarch Nicholas III in mundo +Bryan D. Ouellette, Ph.D.

Holy Imperial Russian Orthodox Church

Holy Nicholean Catholic Church

Holy Monastic Order En Deus

What is the Universal/Catholic Church?

The Catechetical Handbook of the Eastern Orthodox Church by D.H. Stamatis, Ph.D. (2003) describes a heretic as "a person who claims to be a Christian but does not believe in the Catholic faith. Instead, he holds to the teachings of men who mistakenly believe that every man has the right to explain the Holy Scriptures and its doctrines as seems best to himself."

Furthermore, it is stated that the fifth Commandment of the Orthodox Church "requires of us that we do not read the books of heretics, nor heed the blasphemous teachings of those who are untrained in Holy Scripture and in the Sacred Disciplines, nor take part in their discussions."

Part of my job as a priestly bridge between Orthodoxy and Gnosticism is to reconcile perceived differences, conflicts, and understandings of both theologies. I do honestly believe that the fundamental incompatibility of these two spiritual approaches are inherently derived from cultural bias and intentional ignorance. The above quote rather blatantly confirms the latter suspicion, but as I read and re-read these words, I felt compelled to deeply reflect upon how these words affect my Orthodoxy.

As a Gnostic and a Sethian, I could very well not care. Gnostics have an absolute right, as determined by the authority of their own tradition, to simply ignore any and all attempts at theological conformity. But as a minister of God who equally identifies himself as an "autocephalous Russian Orthodox priest," a simple dismissal of the core material would be both irresponsible and inconsiderate. In order to maintain the integrity of my ministerial description, that being both Sethian and Orthodox, I must make every effort to establish a firm position on all points that fall within expected contradiction between the two disciplines. But I have to say, this one was complicated and it led me to really wonder what is meant by the Universal/Catholic Church that I have been ordained into.

Let's first go back and reflect on the Orthodox definition of a heretic.

A heretic is defined to be, "a person who claims to be a Christian but does not believe in the Catholic faith". Incidentally, the Orthodox attach this term to all Protestants and all Roman Catholics, not just those of a Gnostic persuasion who consecrated their vocations outside of the "acceptable" episcopacy. Just by this acknowledgment, it becomes remarkably evident that "true" Catholicism is arbitrary and theoretical. Now, I must admit that Orthodoxy does have one powerful claim to hold the right to define it. It is their contention that the Universal/Catholic Church and all subsequent matters of faith and belief cannot be established by the act of one man's infallibility (in the case of the Papacy) or determined in the mind of private revelation (in the case of Gnosticism), but rather agreed upon by the counsels of the synod of Bishops. I do yield my objections this far in respect to this process. One of my primary criticisms of Protestantism is the personal interpretation of Holy Scripture. I've always felt that good theology is a group effort, maintained by the highest scholarly minds. But again, there is something also to be said for pure mystical experience, which is often something very much lacking in the left-brained world of higher theological education and conventional Church hierarchies.

Ultimately, I personally find the unfortunate flaw in Orthodoxy's approach to be written into the very "fifth Commandment of the Church". This idea that all Orthodox believers are "required" to not read heretical books or participate in similar discussions with such "problematic" people. Such a "law" can only lead one down a path of true ignorance, which is, not so ironically, the very antithesis of Gnostic ideology. A true Gnostic's purpose isn't to overthrow Orthodox teachings, lead the faithful astray, teach falsehood, lies, or to conduct one's affairs through premeditated treachery. No! Rather its only objective is to enlighten, to discern, to share, to experience, to realize, to know. And to do so never by means of coercion.

Which do you find to be the more enlightened approach?

Idealistically, my reconciliation between these two points of obvious contention rests within the simple fact that no man has any right of authority over any other man. Clergy are guides. Perhaps they have administrative authority by virtue of their positions, but this does not give them any right to perpetuate intentional ignorance and enforce it against their self-proclaimed subordinates. To assume such power as a clergyman is akin to what Orthodoxy would describe as Satanic manipulation.

I will always be troubled by this Orthodox definition of heresy and Catholicism. But I will remain forever hopeful that the Church's dynamic spirit will eventually move to such an enlightened state, that it will no longer be able to harbor such antiquated notions of censorship. Could it be that these Church leaders know, within their obvious wisdom and education, that there is truly more and they are afraid of it? I believe this is precisely the case and it is for this reason [sadly] that my autocephaly will remain my continued safeguard and protection against such pervasive dangers of conventionalism.

And yes, to you Dr. Stamatis, I am indeed a Christian and I most certainly believe in the Catholic faith and I do so with full intent because my own wisdom, experience, and intellect have confirmed that there is indeed more than what Orthodoxy is teaching us about God and I refuse to fear it. You may condemn me, my congregation, and my entire ministry, but such condemnation is based entirely upon the disease of intentional ignorance and that, my dear Dr. Stamatis, is a disease you can keep to yourself.

Fr. Bryan