reply to post by Masonic Light
Hi Masonic Light--
We have seen it written that the O.T.O. to-day is no longer directly part of or associated (since 1918) with Global Freemasonry Proper but was
originally founded as an off-shoot of Global Freemasonry (as an Academia Masonica FOR Masons to understand their own ritual underpinnings) with its
members having first required to be high level initiated Freemasons…would you at least agree with that premise?
Here is a quote from their more modern initiation rules according to their own OTO Website
“O.T.O. membership does not “of itself” confer any Status in Freemasonry.
Nearly 100 years ago, when O.T.O. was established in Germany, it was closely allied to several Rites of European Freemasonry.
However, in 1918, Aleister Crowley determined it appropriate for O.T.O. to assert its own unique identity as an ‘independent system’.
At that time, while retaining the use of certain convenient customs and terminology used in early Freemasonry, Crowley revised the O.T.O. rituals,
insignia and modes of recognition to avoid infringing upon the legitimate privileges of the established and recognized authorities of modern
Freemasonry, and also to specifically reflect the teachings of Thelema.
Crowley's O.T.O. has not claimed to "make Masons" since 1918….”
“In 1885, Kellner met the Theosophical and Rosicrucian scholar, Dr. Franz Hartmann (1838 - 1912).
During the course of his studies, Kellner believed that he had discovered a "Key" which offered a clear explanation of all the complex symbolism of
Freemasonry, and, Kellner believed, opened the mysteries of Nature.
Kellner developed a desire to form an Academia Masonica which “would enable all Freemasons to become familiar with all existing Masonic degrees”
In 1895, Kellner began to discuss his idea for founding an Academia Masonica with his associate Theodor Reuss (Merlin or Peregrinus, June 28, 1855 -
Oct. 28, 1923).
During these discussions, Kellner decided that the Academia Masonica should be called the "Oriental Templar Order."
The occult inner circle of this Order (O.T.O. proper) would be organized parallel to the highest degrees of the Memphis and Mizraim Rites of Masonry,
and would teach the esoteric Rosicrucian doctrines of the Hermetic Brotherhood of Light, and Kellner's "Key" to Masonic symbolism.
Both men and women would be admitted at all levels to this Order, but possession of the various degrees of Craft and High-Grade Freemasonry would be a
prerequisite for admission to the Inner Circle of O.T.O.
Due to the regulations of the established Grand Lodges which governed Regular Masonry, women could not be made Masons and would therefore be excluded
by default from membership in the Oriental Templar Order.
This may have been one of the reasons that Kellner & his associates resolved to obtain control over one of the many rites, or systems, of Masonry in
order to reform the system for the Admission of women….”
So originally, from what the website seems to be saying all “higher raniking” OTO members had first to be already good-standing member initiates
of a Masonic Order…but the OTO does not actually confer Degrees recognized within international global Freemasonry…
I suppose the weird and mudy relation of the O.T.O. to World Masonry is a somewhat akin to what we to-day call ‘Christianity’ in its relation to
‘modern Rabinnic’ (i.e. non-sacrificial) Judaeism
(But…perhaps we should use plurals here, i.e. ‘Judaeisms’ and ‘Christianities’ since there are so many different expressions of each from
the beginning and still running around to-day…)
i.e. in that the early ‘Christianities’ were once a variegated collection of several off-shoots of a form of Palestinian Messianic Judaiesm
founded by R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean Nazir (=Gk. ‘Iesous’) and his immediate family based on Daviddic bloodlineages, which after the
Destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple of YHWH by the Romans in the 1st Failed Jewish War against Rome (66-72 CE), had gradually abandoned its
original roots ‘within Judaeism’, and the stricter teachings of ‘Iesous’ to ‘obey every jot and tittle of the Torah’ by totally
abandoning the strict Jewish Kashrut Diet and by omitting e.g. ‘Circumcision’ and by not following the precepts of the Torah of ‘Moses’) and
following more the teachings of the ‘Salvation by Faith churches’ established by Saul of Tarsus (who ‘never knew the Teacher in the flesh’)
and his followers…
Some would STILL regard most of the modern day ‘Christianities’ running around today as ‘Ultra Reform Messianic non Sacrificial Judaeism’ in
the sense that most Christians still worship the ‘clan god of the Jews’ i.e. YHWH and STILL regard the Hebrew Scriptures (which they call the
‘old’ testament…) as ‘canonical’ and ‘inspired’ and integrally related to their understanding of their own more gentile loving and
universal (as opposed to Zionist military exclusivist) Messiah figure…
Others (looking more closely at all the ‘specific dogmas’ adopted by the post Athanasian Christianities) would NOT regard today’s expressions
within ‘Christianity’ as having anything to do with today’s various Rabinnic Judaeisms – (e.g. Ultra Extreme Orthodox Chasid, Orthodox,
Conservative, Reform, Ultra Reform etc.) going back to the earlier schisms which began from the period immediately after the 1st Failed Jewish War
against Rome (66-72 CE) when the Nazorean family of ‘Iesous’ and the ‘original Messianic Christianities’ were basically wiped out – or even
earlier if you count Saul of Tarsus bitter exchanges with the Nazorean Messianic Daviddic leaders (headed up by the blood brother off ‘Iesous’,
who went by the name of ‘James the Just’ but was NOT one of the 12)…
I myself would consider most of to-day’s ‘Christianities’ today as representing a form of ultra-Reform Messianic Judaeism - since their ‘holy
Texts’ which are usedto justify some of their weird belief systems are in fact at least partly ‘based’ on older ‘Jewish’ Hebrew texts with
their concomitant Zionist Weltanschauungen (see e.g. the so-called ‘Book of Revelation’ which shows this ‘zionist’ Reform Messianic Jewish
aspect most clearly of all the books in the so-called New Testament).
Or perhaps it can be seen as akin to the situation of what we call ‘Buddhism’ seen as an offshoot of Hinduism – since when all is said and
done, ‘the Buddah’ was born a Hindu with a northern ‘Indian Weltanschauung’…
Now you yourself and others like you may not be able to see the O.T.O. as part of Masonry, but it would be very difficult to separate the world-view
of the O.T.O. (especially in its founding documents) from world Masonry and its ideals – especially since originally all members of the OTO had to
be higher-initiated Freemasons first…as I said earlier, to deny the Masonic Nature of the O.T.O. (to me) seems more of a ‘semantic discussion’
than anything else...the sticking point being the fact that the O.T.O. cannot grant Masonic Degrees...
Which is somewhat akin to the various claims of modern ultra 'orthodox' Israeli Jews announcing to the world that anyone who is NOT an 'born
ultra-orthodox Jew actually living in Eretz Yisro'el' would ever be authorised by G-d to make a Jewish Proselyte (i.e. circumcise a Gentile and
perform a Miqvah ceremony to make him a fully fledged 'Jew' ) - their conversion would be 'not effectual...'
It seems whenever men get together to form organisations (for whatever common cause) it is not long before splinter groups start to form holding many
original ideas with the first group but introducing new and different ideas as they separate off...where one begins and another ends is sometimes only
a matter of opinion...
In the meantime, please, stay on this ATS thread and don't let the Profanum Vulgus wear you down !!!