On the Gnostic Church, the Rosicrucians and Elus Cohens: The Mathieu Ravignat Interview

Mathieu Ravignat Interview with Rosicrucian Tradition

In this blog post Samuel Robinson interviews Mathieu Ravignat to find out more about the French Gnostic Church, the Elu Cohens and how these relate to the Rosicrucian tradition. Mathieu Ravignat is the author of several important titles which bring never before seen materials to the English speaking world for the first time. He is an expert on the workings of the French theurgic, Martinist and Rosicrucian inner orders.

MR: Firstly, thanks for the questions and this opportunity to address my Rosicrucian Brothers and Sisters on your important Facebook Page. Your Rosicrucian Tradition page has truly created an unprecedented community of esoteric practitioners both in scope and in quality. Congratulations on your efforts!

RT: What motivates your approach to esoteric research?

MR: I addressed this only partially in my book on the Élus Coëns (original spelling of Elus Cohen) so I am happy to have the occasion to do so more fully here. Thanks for the question.

I think that anyone who is truly in contact with the Masters of an Esoteric Tradition feels spiritually urged by them to share their teachings with the world. At least I do. In my opinion the Masters want the Light of the Gnosis to be shared and they want our society to progress under the influence of that Light.

If someone truly believes that what the Masters have taught is valuable and can be helpful to people in our materialistic society today, then isn’t it our moral obligation, as Initiates, to share that with mankind. The Greats from Blavatsky, Lévi, Kingsford to Papus all agreed that the materialism of our age should be fought against and that we are at a risk of losing our souls. Arguably that is truer today than it has ever been. To them Esotericism could be the bridge between science and spirituality which would ensure that humanity continued to remain spiritual in the future. They had a sense of duty to their society, and it wasn’t just about me myself and I. They had a sense of a spiritual and social mission which I find we don’t talk enough about in the Esoteric community today. To the risk of sounding preachy, I believe that we are, each in our own way, called to share the Light of Gnosis around us. I mean, can you imagine a world in which those thinkers influenced by Freemasonry and Rosicrucianism had not shared their knowledge? If we agree with the argument of Dame Frances Yates science itself would have never been revealed, and maybe even human rights would have never happened.

At the same time of course we have to do this while respecting the oaths we have taken as members of initiatic orders. But if one looks carefully at what is covered by those oaths there is a considerable amount of latitude for sharing with others. There is much one can do to share the Light of the Gnosis with others and esoteric secrecy is not an excuse for squandering and hiding legitimate knowledge. As a professional researcher I have an ethical and deontological responsibility to share what I have learnt and make what truth has come out of my research available to all to read and debate. This is how knowledge advances in western society. As an initiate I weigh this professional responsibility with those of the oaths I have taken in my orders carefully and seriously.

I also think secrecy should not be used to prop up Gurus and Orders which really are not qualified to teach what they claim to teach. I cannot count how many times I asked a legitimate question to a supposed expert who hid behind a veil of secrecy, only to learn latter that the person just did not know the answer. This is simply dishonest and just shows to what extent the person is holding onto to power for power’s sake. I also believe some Orders do this because saying they have access to secret unknown information is a great way to use humanity’s natural curiosity to build the membership of their orders. Withholding information is a great way of keeping members salivating at the mouth for more. The worse of them do this for money or to control others.

So essentially, I believe that what the Masters have taught is immensely valuable for the individual and society and I have had the fortune of having a profession and having the training which allows me to conduct research and share it. Ergo it is my responsibility to share what I have learnt with others. This coupled with the feeling that I am being encouraged to do so by the Masters whom do not wish to be the instruments of various questionable machinations, are what motivate me in my esoteric writing.

As for my approach to research. I think some teachers in the past have been somewhat too liberal in their appropriation of original source material. We have been told by them that a tradition is like this or like that but when we study the original sources we discover that what they claim is simply not true. That much of what they claim is “tradition” is in fact of their own invention. That is not a problem if you are open about that but it becomes a problem when it is claimed as coming from the founders.  For example, before Regardie published the Golden Dawn material, one of the only ways for us to know what the GD was truly about was to read Crowley or Dion Fortune’s publically available published works. But both of these had their own deeply personal interpretations of the material. I am not saying that these interpretations are not legitimate but they are different from the originals. This is also the case with the figure of Robert Ambelain in French Esotericism. For the longest time we only had his interpretation of the Élus Coëns (or Elus Cohen as he put it). But Ambelain did not have access to the full picture and to all the sources which have been discovered since by various esoteric researchers (many of them his own students). In my opinion, knowing the true nature of the original material is crucially important. Access to primary sources is the foundation of good research. Making them available is also part of protecting the truth about a given tradition. For a researcher like me, truth is central to life. But also I believe doing this allows us to appreciate how people like Ambelain innovated and how they developed things on the basis of their personal point of view. A valuable thing indeed. It also allows us to compare and contrast, “to debate the Masters” so to speak. But you can only engage in this debate if you are well informed.

Therefore, I feel it necessary to correct the record when I can about the original intentions of the founders of the various esoteric traditions I have come to know about. We must not forget that the Hermetic axiom not only says “To be silent,” but also “To Know”…not to believe or to accept whatever we are told, but to truly Know, and the purpose of knowledge is Truth, both mundane and Divine. To this end, I see no sense in trying to restrict access to material when it is available publically in France and elsewhere with a library card. Therefore, I offer my research on what is readily available openly as well. That’s what makes ethical sense to me and what several esoteric scholars are presently doing around the world. In France, we can name Serge Caillet, Dominique Clairembault and Georges Court as examples but they were also preceded by such luminaries as: René Leforestier, René Guénon and Robert Amadou.

In addition, I strive to always allow the original source material to speak for itself. As a Researcher and a Traditionalist, I only try to reconstruct or comment on something if there is strong internal evidence that it existed or likely existed in the actual writings of the founder and their original Orders. If I reconstruct something I don’t go out of the system to do so and I don’t add anything from other traditions to it. If I want to practice Vajrayana Buddhism or Taoist Qigong, then I go and do that on their own terms. I don’t mix things together in my writings. In my opinion, there has been too much of this in the past, and it harms the tradition you are inserting borrowed material from and the tradition you are borrowing from as well. It also becomes harder for future practitioners to distinguish the truth of things. I mean what if we had all accepted blindly that Esoteric Buddhism was Blavatsky’s system (as she first claimed) and never went through the trouble to learn the actual Tibetan tradition. Where would the West be today in its understanding of Vajrayana and Tantric Buddhism?

I personally would like to think that we have developed to a point in the Western Esoteric Community that we do not need to rely on other traditions anymore and on the rampant form of comparative eclecticism which was in vogue in the later part of the 19^th century with Blavatsky’s Isis Unveiled, Pikes’ Morals and Dogma, Papus’ Traité Méthodique de Science Occulte and later Manley Hall’s The Secret Teaching of All Ages. In addition, I hope we have moved into an era of more discernment and appreciation of the specificity of each tradition in their original form and which form a part of the greater Western Esoteric Tradition.

This is why in my works, unless it is in an original quote from a Master, you will not see any attempt to compare the tradition I am discussing with others from other times or other cultures. It is not because I don’t think that can be useful, it is because I think there is too much of that out there already and what we need to do is take every western tradition at face value in order to truly know it deeply as it was/is before making comparisons with other traditions which have their own centuries of development. If not those comparisons risk to be shallow and inaccurate.

I mean what is the point really, to acquire a shallow comparative knowledge of various traditions from various cultures or to truly practice a tradition intensely and be spiritually transformed by it?

Ok I will come down from my soapbox now!

RT: In general, what do you think is the relationship between the different Orders which make up the Western Esoteric Tradition, e.g., Martinism, Elus Cohen, Gnostic Church, etc? How do you make a distinction between them?

This is a very difficult question to answer given the scope of it but I will try to put it as succinctly as possible.

Not to rain on anyone’s parade but I think we need to remain sceptical of the grand theories which are out there linking all theses traditions in one continuous line of succession à la Robert Ambelain in his Templier et Rose Croix or in his introduction in his Sacrementaire de la Rose Croix. Later in his life Ambelain was seeking to simplify and syncretize his initiatic orders into one large connected tradition. This was intentionally declared in his 1968 rectification letter.

The existence of ancient or medieval lines of succession have been overstated in my opinion. There is a kind of romantic fetishism about them in the Esoteric Community. Hard historical facts show that esoteric history is much messier than that, and it is more of a series of literary influences, or person to person influences, than organisational ones. These three types of lineage get confused in the writings of many esoteric writers. “Louis-Claude de Saint-Martin read Boehme” becomes, “he was initiated by a disciple of Boehme.”  Or “they based their initiatic structure on the Gold und Rosencreunz Orden sephrothic structure” becomes they have “a direct initiatic link to that order.”

My cynical side also tells me that these grand theories have had hidden purposes for some Orders out there; that is to justify that they teach “all the secrets.” What were once distinct traditions get melded together and at times inappropriately in my opinion. Ways the original founders would have never entertained and in ways which diminishes the impact of these systems spiritually.

So I am of the school that we need to parcel out the specificities of each western tradition by undoing the syncretism of the 19^th century, because it allows us to appreciate each tradition more. I also think it helps us to practice them more effectively. I mean they were once created separately for a purpose were they not?

Personally, for French esotericism, I think a useful way to understand the traditions historically is on the basis of the Masters behind them like we do, say in academia with different philosophies (e.g., Platonism, Aristotelianism, Hegelianism, etc.).

To me the Élus Coëns is about the teachings of Martinès de Pasqually and his students when they were still working his system whereas the Rectified Scottish Rite is a reflection of Jean Baptiste Willermoz Masonic philosophy. The Martinist Order in its 19^th century version is mainly about the “scientific-biological-esoteric” ideas of Papus; that of The OKR+C mainly about the writings of Lévi filtered through de Guaita and others in its Supreme Council. The Gnostic Church is more complex in the sense that it has had different eras of emphasis depending on the Patriarch leading the Church. But I think its original intention was to be a form of Sacerdotal Valentinian Neo-Catharism.

So to summarize, I think if one was to make the following distinctions in French esotericism it would help in understanding the entire tradition:

Martinist Order: General Western Esoteric Knowledge, “Eclectic Hermeticism”

Élus Coëns: Martinès de Pasqually, Judeo-Christian Theurgy

Rose+Croix: The Christian Kabbalah and Parcelsian Rosicrucianism, Alchemy

Gnostic Church: Valentinian Neo-Catharism, Sacerdotal and Sacramental

Evidence shows that the Martinist Order, as Papus conceived it, was designed as a general non operative school of western esotericism, easily joined; an outer order so to speak. The manual for that order was for a long-time considered Papus’ ‘Traité Élémentaire de Science Occulte.’ Whereas, the first statements about L’Ordre Kabalistique de la Rose+Croix clearly show it was designed as a more advanced college of equals and that it was inspired by Paracelsian Rosicrucianism and medical alchemy (see the response of the Supreme Council to Péladan for example were the OKR+C’s Rosicrucianism is defined). It was also designed as a second ordre for the Martiniste Order. Much of the essays of the original of its Supreme Council members (whom were amazingly prolific) made their way in Papus’ ‘Traité Méthodique de Science Occulte’ and in the pages of l’Initiation as well as in a surprising amount of single-authored books. Though today, after the influence of Ambelain, the Élus Cohen operates in most lineages as a kind of second order to the OM, it was originally designed by Pasqually to be self sustaining. It had its own outer Masonic style Blue Lodge type of degrees. Under Ambelain the OKR+C also became more masonic and mystical.

I think using the above distinctions to mentally take out anything in one tradition which belongs in another is an interesting exercise in discernment. It is important in my opinion, while doing this, to eschew the syncretiscism of the 19^th century, the idea that “they are all part of one grand tradition” which prejudices the mind away from the specificities contained in each of them.

Having said that, and though it is clear to me that the foundational documents show that the Masters who founded theses Orders originally conceived of them in separate ways, there was considerable overlap in membership across Orders and particularly between the Martinist Order, l’Ordre Kabblistique de la Rose+Croix and the Gnostic Church. But just because there was shared membership does not necessarily mean that they had the same goal or that all these traditions were the same thing. They were created as distinct bodies to pass on distinct lineages possessing different and equally important goals, which I think my books on the EC and the Gnostic Church have showed in abundance.

RT: What are the main points that most don’t fully comprehend regarding the Elus Cohen its initiations and its operations? What is its real purpose?

I would say that it is more deeply Judeo-Christian than some have assumed it to be. Because the Élus Coëns has been tacked onto the Martinist Order as a kind of second order, there is confusion that it is a kind of extension of the general hermetic esoteric knowledge we learn there. Originally this is not true, remember it was a completely separate system from Papusian Martinism. There is in fact not much hermeticism (at least not in the generally accepted definition of that word) in Pasqually’s original system.

It is also very ascetic. Fasting, sleep deprivation and denial of bodily comforts is fundamental to its operative method. So is good old penance and confession. I imagine these traditional Christian methods would insult the liberal sensibilities of a lot of people in the Esoteric Community today.

Another big realization for me during my research was that it is a lot less Kabbalistic based than I thought from having experienced the Ambelain version. Ambelain added a lot of Lurianic Kabballah to his reconstructions. However, Pasqually’s 2400 names of spirits, for example, do not reflect the traditional angelic hierarchies of the Kabbalah. His major planetary spirits are also unrelated to the Hermetic and Kabbalistic tradition that we are used to. For example, he doesn’t use the Greek planetary intelligences or the traditional seven archangels and as far as I know his planetary spirits are unique to his system.

I think another big surprise to some would be that the spiritual operations are imitative of the Old Testament Prophets. In the original EC system, the stories of the Prophets are assumed to be symbolic representations of magical operations. When Joshua brought down the walls of Jericho he literally did it through theurgy. The Élus Coëns are called to emulate these theurgical operations. We have to emulate all the major Prophet’s operations in order to defeat the negative elemental and planetary forces they did to complete are full reintegration into our original powers. It is as if our full powers are scattered piece meal in the spiritual history of man as found in the Bible and we have to kind of put all back together. Like a humpty dumpty version of a Man-God.

Lastly, I would say it is more Christic than some would believe. Contact with Christ, referred to as Héli and the “Great Spirit of the Double Power both terrestrial and celestial” (both Human and Divine) is the primary focus of Réaux+Croix work. All EC are eventually required to come into direct contact with Christ. Christ is also seen to be the spirit behind all the operations and revelations of the Old Testament Prophets. When the prophets are doing their thing in the Bible, they are doing it under the impulse and influence of Christ according to Pasqually.

We are therefore squarely in a Judeo-Christian framework and there is very little room for anything which is Egypto-Hermetic or Pagan here.

RT: How does the EC relate to Rosicrucianism in particular?

If by Rosicrucianism you mean the historical German phenomenon of the Manifestos and the following Orders inspired by them such as the Gold Und Rosencrunz Orden and the Asiatic Brethren, I would say very little.

For example, there is hardly any evidence in Martinès de Pasqually works that he was familiar with Christian Rosencreunz and there is a total absence of references to the legend found in the Rosicrucian Manifestos. Also, researchers in France have basically proven that Papus was speculating when he assumed a connection between Swedenborg and Pasqually and certainly their systems are very different. In addition, Pasqually only makes mention of the word Kaballah once and the spelling and meaning of the word he uses in that one instant is uncertain.

Pasqually’s Order is much more Masonic in structure (similar to the early French Scottish Rite) than to the earliest German versions of the Rosicrucian Order. There is also no evidence that the Élus Coëns practiced operative alchemy which in my opinion was on of the major characteristic of Rosicrucianism in its early years. Pasqually does indeed talk about the elements but not in the same way as Paracelsus and most Rosicrucian writers do. Pasqually’s system is basically a form of Biblical Theurgy. Its is very Roman Catholic and penintentional in its approach. I would also note the entire lack of the use of the vault as a symbol in the Élus Coëns masonic grade system.

Many point to the name of the EC’s ultimate degree the Réaux+Croix as evidence of a link with Rosicrucianism.  In my opinion, this is also an error. One need only compare the translated Réaux+Croix degree in my book with other Rosicrucian degrees (e.g., those of the SRIA) to come to the same conclusion. There really is nothing overtly Rosicrucian about the Réaux+Croix degree.

In my opinion making this association is a similar error as the association made between Rosicrucianism and the Masonic Rose Croix 18th degree in the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite and which is also found in the Memphis+Misräim Rite. Those that have been through that degree know that it has very little to do with Paracelsian Rosicrucianism. Without revealing anything that is not publically available, that degree is really about Jesus as a moral teacher and the emphasis on Charity he brought. There is nothing alchemical, hermetic or really esoteric about it.

Furthermore, in Toulouse, the founder of the Toulousian line of Rose+Croix (which was passed on through the OKR+C) was the Vicomte de Lapasse who was the student of the Sicilian Prince Balbiani. Both of them were very clear that their Rosicrucianism had nothing to do with Freemasonry and Balbiani was emphatic that he did not want his school getting confused with the Masonic Rose+Croix degree.  De Lapasse reports Balbiani saying the following to him: “those that know I am Rose Croix believe that I am a Freemason. This is an error. Freemasonry gave to one of its grades the denomination of Rose Croix and the profane confuse those Freemasons who bear that evil diginity with the true Brethren Rose Croix whose institution goes back to the XVth century. The vulgar is mistaken. The true Rose Croix are outside masonic associations…”

Incidentally, this makes a link between Balbiani and Cogliostro (which some have proposed) unlikely since Cagliostro used Freemasonry as the structure to pass on his teachings. Just because they were both Sicilians doesn’t mean they agreed. I mean have you ever met a Sicilian before. No insult intended, I spent a summer in Sicily and loved every minute of it!

In any case this strong distinction made by the first founders of the OKR+C became blurred in the Order through the syncretic writings of Papus and others. After them the Masonic Rose+Croix degree starts to become confused with Rosicrucianism in French circles to the point that Ambelain included it as a degree in his reformed OKR+C!

One might also expect that Pasqually might have borrowed his Réaux+Croix degree from the Masonic degree but actually Pasqually’s Réaux+Croix degree is very unique and has very little in common with the content of the 18^th degree of the Scottish Rite. Again, one need only read the reconstructed degree in my book and compare it to the Scottish Rite versions found the oldest monitors (such as the Francken or Baylot Manuscripts) to come to the same conclusion.

So Pasqually’s Réaux+Croix degree is neither Rosicrucian nor Masonic…it is Martinist in the truest sense of the word! To make historical links between the EC and Rosicrucianism in its original German form is in my opinion is “tiré par les cheveux” (a big stretch). It is an example of one of those grand theories I was speaking about earlier.

If we were to ask the question in a more spiritual than historical manner, I would say there are less similarities between the ultimate spiritual goal of Pasqually’s system with that of original Rosicrucianism than one might expect. Pasqually’s goal which is the reintegration of man into his original powers and priesthood as revealed in the Bible whereas that of original Rosicrucianism, in my opinion, is the alchemical transformation of the physical body into a spiritual vehicle. Pasqually does address the body and its relationship with the macrocosm but he is much more concerned about spiritual contact with Divine beings (celestial spirits) than he is with alchemical transformation. Ambelain confused this matter with his “Spiritual Alchemy” book which is really about mysticism and not alchemy. Changing the use and meaning of the word alchemy, like he did, really doesn’t help matters any and just confuses things more. Pasqually’s system is a lot more Theurgical than original Rosicrucianism. If one consults the spiritual practices in my book on the EC and compares them to let’s say to operative alchemy or the inner alchemy of Bardon, or the sexual alchemy of Beverley Randolph and Clymer, or even the meditative practices found in Pansophy or AMORC for example, one quickly comes to the conclusion that we are dealing with very different approaches. To the extent that Theurgy is present in some Rosicrucian Orders it tends to be to harness elemental and astral forces, whereas EC Theurgy is mainly designed to bind and defeat those very same forces.

RT: Is the Elus Cohen suited to Rosicrucians?

Interesting question and hard to answer. There are many different expressions of Rosicrucianism but I don’t think they should automatically go hand in hand, no.

I can only say that the EC path is less concerned about the body, astral forces and the physical elements than most Rosicrucianism today. I don’t know, maybe that is because of the materialism of our age but in Pasqually’s time the focus was vertical, on contact with divine beings and not horizontal on our own bodies’ energies or on those of nature. So there is no “energy” and astral work within it and not really any operative or inner alchemy either. To even use these terms to try and understand the original EC would be anachronistic in my opinion. I would also say it is a lot more warrior like than most Rosicrucian schools today, which tend to be on the more intellectual side of things (nothing wrong with that!). Pasqually and his Father and most of his disciples were military officers. They lived and breathed spiritual warriorship and saw a lot of evil in their times and so in their spiritual lives they took demonic forces head on. If you practice the original EC you better be a sober kind of person, have an indomitable will, completely control of your faculties and physical desires, and a very strong stomach! You see, there is none of that Jungian stuff in it about demons being “the hidden shadow archetypes of your unconscious” to be integrated into your psyche. An idea which is very much in vogue today amongst some esotericists. In the original EC these forces are not to be integrated but rather beaten to a bloody pulp!

So perhaps it is a path more appealing to the traditional Christian monastic ascetic, or mystical type of Rosicrucian, than the hermetic intellectual one. I find that certain attitudes expressed by Pasqually are similar to those found in the writings of the Desert Fathers and

I would also add that the EC is definitely for those who believe in Christ and less for those who are syncretic and neo-pagan in their approach. No judgement implied here, that is just how the original system is.

Ok, I think I will leave at that.

RT: What are the main points that most don’t fully comprehend regarding the Gnostic Church, its ordination and activities?

As I speak about the Gnostic Church I should add the disclaimer that what I am saying here is based on my own research and opinions and doesn’t necessarily reflect the opinions of the Church in which I have been ordained. (L’Église Gnostique Catholique Apostolique)With that public service message out of the way let me answer your question.

Now, what most miss is that it is an actual Church and that it is not just something appended to an esoteric order. That its clergy are called to service and that being ordained in the Church is a serious affair. Taken on the mantle of Christ (no matter how you may conceive of Him) shouldn’t be taken lightly and though the Church is one of the most open minded in existence, it has its core values and one of them is administering sacraments of a Christian nature.

RT: What is the real purpose of the Gnostic Church and its ordination? I know some people see it as a way of empowering their theurgy or Elus Cohens rituals?

That may be what some people believe today but that wasn’t its original intention. All the Patriarchs are clear on what they believe the purpose of the Church to be. That is, depending on the era of the Church: a place to worship the Aeons for those that our already Pneumatics or Initiates (Doinel), a school of western esotericism in which the sacraments an ordinations are required (Fabre des Essarts and Bricaud), or a church which espouses Origenism and saves the faith of those in esoteric circles plus practices exorcisms (Ambelain).

The true purpose of Gnostic Ordination and Consecration, like in any Church, is to receive the authority to administer the sacraments. That is to serve God by serving others. Just because Gnostic Clergy are called to do so mainly within the Esoteric Community doesn’t change that Ministry. And this calling should not be taken lightly. The Gnostic Church is the “Church of initiates,” a place where Initiates can feel welcomed and free to practice their devotions and receive the sacraments in a way appropriate to them.

Gnostic Church AEon structure from the 1899 Catechism

Both the 1899 and the 1907 Catechisms are all clear on this point and none of these reasons include the EC or the Memphis+Misraïm Rite.  We must remember that the Ambelain’s Elus Cohen Order wasn’t founded until 1943 and that the Gnostic Church was founded in 1891. So its purpose predates any intentions after 1943.

Besides, in the original Élus Coëns, the highest initiation rituals were complete forms of ordinations in and of themselves. This is the specificity of the Réaux+Croix degree in particular, it makes the Mason into a Priest of the Order of Melchizedek. It makes you a COHEN. There was absolutely no need for original EC members to receive ordination in any Church. Many of the EC members were also devout Roman Catholics and would have thought that unthinkable anyways.

From Pasqually’s point of view, the fact that we have the faculty of speech means that we all have an ability to be Priests as our father Adam was a priest. Meaning to return to our initial duties which were to praise and serve God and assist in keeping the forces of chaos away from his creation.

I think this idea of the relationship between Gnostic Ordination and the Thuergical power of the Élus Coëns may stem from the syncreticism of Ambelain’s later initiatic system where a system of equivalencies was developed to administer it all. However, it is clear with the original Réaux+Croix ordination that there is nothing else necessary. Believe me once you have done everything Pasqually demands of you in the 10 grades of the original Élus Coëns before the Réaux Croix you will possess the power and more importantly the humility of a true Priest.

RT: How does the Gnostic Church relate to Rosicrucianism and to the 66^th degree of the Rite of Memphis Misraïm?

In the time of Jules Doinel, the Church created an alliance with Martinism and by extension with l’Ordre Kabbalistique de la Rose+Croix and there was a lot of shared membership. Papus for example was made a Bishop of the Gnostic Church. But when one studies the ecclesiastical writings of Doinel one sees little references to Hermeticism, Rosicrucianism, Martinism or to the Western Esoteric Tradition in general. Doinel is focussed more on the Cathars and the ancient Gnostics and through his visions he is almost exclusively in contact with Cathar or Christian spirits. One need only read his “Catechism” and his articles in l’Initiation to come to that conclusion. But after Doinel left the patriarchy the next Patriarch Fabre des Essarts and his collaborator Louis Sophrone Fugairon redefined the Church’s approach to include the entire Western Esoteric Tradition. They called their Gnosticism “Modern Universal Gnosis.” This decision was made official at the Synod (Concile) of Toulouse in 1903. At that Concile (and in its resulting Constitution) the Church essentially became an Initiatic Order which used the Scottish Rite frame to teach a whole panoply of western esoteric concepts found in France at that time. When one peruses the ‘1899 Catechism’ which was the precursor to the 1903 Concile the explanations of Gnostic doctrines are massively drawn from the hermetic tradition which many Rosicrucians would be familiar with.

The degree structure was based on the idea of a Gnostic Masonic Scottish based Rite and I contend in my book that this Rite was never fully developed and that is why Bricaud chose to offer the rite of Memphis+Misraïm to his Church members. It is also at this time that I believe the Memphis+Misraïm Rite began to be “gnosticized.” According to Michel Jarrige and French historian whom I respect a lot (he was an officer des Palmes Académiques), though it is Yarker who changed the 66^th degree tittle from Grand Inspector to Grand Consecrateur (according to the ‘Vuillaume Tuilleur’ it used to correspond closely to the 31st degree of the Scottish Rite), it is Bricaud that created a special sacerdotal consecration initiation ritual for that degree. So the 66^th degree consecration ritual is a rather new change in the history of the M+M, an innovation in the work so to speak. The degree consists of being consecrated as a Templar Bishop and in this respect it is interesting to compare it to the York Rite Knight Templar High Priest degree. It should be noted however, that this consecration is not the same thing as being consecrated as a Bishop of the Gnostic Church and nowhere in the ritual is that implied. It is also interesting to compare the Bricaud and Ambelain versions of this degree because they show their distinct approaches to esotericism and to the meaning of ordination. Like Ambelain’s version of the Church, his ritual is more Roman Catholic than that of Bricaud’s. Bricaud’s ritual contains some Hindu references as well. Other interesting tidbits of information are that during the Memphis+Misraïm Grand Lodge wars with the Belgians, Chevillon criticized the Belgians for attempting to turn that degree into a semblance of the Roman Catholic Consecration of a Bishop, also in most obedience’s today, that consecration ritual has been moved up to the 92nd degree given its spiritual importance.

Furthermore, because Bricaud was a general esotericist interested in all of western esotericism he also brought in Rosicrucian influences from his OKR+C studies into the M+M. He learnt his Rosicrucianism from a little known person in esoteric history named Jacques Charrot (1831–1911), who was a direct student of Eliphas Lévi. Charrot became his master of Alchemy, the Kabbalah and Magic. It is my opinion that it is Charrot’s teachings which made their way into the French M+M Arcana Arconorum 87-91^st degree material. This would explain why there is a lot of Lévi content in that material even though the M+M Rite historically predates Lévi’s birth and works. Ambelain would also add his own material to those degrees over the years and following his example others more recently have done so as well. So in my opinion, if one is truly interested in cracking the code of the entire mysterious affair of the M+M Arcanum Arconorum as a historical phenomenon (in France); it is important to make a distinction between the material which is original to the M+M as found in the original degree monitors (Tuilleurs) as modified by the Bedarride Brothers, (for example what is found in the Library of Alençon or le fonds Gaborria) and what has been added afterwards by Bricaud, Rombauts (OHTH or Ordre Hermétique Tétragémiste et Mstique) and Ambelain (including the recent adoption and modification of some of the Kremmerz practices). I think it would be truly useful to trace the literary genealogy of the materials found in the M+M, and which people claim to be AA, in this way. To my knowledge no one has done so chronologically and in great detail…. perhaps a project for the future!

Finally, it should be noted that in Fabre des Essarts time, Ordination including Consecration was made available to those who felt called but only if they had passed the 23^rd degree of the Gnostic modified Scottish Rite. In fact, that Rite only had 33 degrees reflecting the Church’s cosmology which included 33 Eons. So passing the 66^th degree in the M+M Rite was definitely not an original requirement for Gnostic Consecration.

RT: Is Gnostic Ordination suited for all Rosicrucians?

Like the EC, I don’t think they should automatically go hand in hand, no. I would say that if you are a Rosicrucian with a Christic focus and you feel called to serve God in a more intimate way at His Table and to serve others than it may suited to you. Having said that one needs to be called to the priesthood and the requirements for becoming clergy in the Church have been historically difficult. Allow me to illustrate this by quoting some excerpts of the Church’s ‘1899 Catechism’ from my recent book:

…we can say that the Priesthood exists in all of us but that certain individuals are called in a special way to the Clergy. We recognize them for the inclination they have for this state and the penchant they show for studying religious ceremonies and for leading a life more elevated than others in the Assembly. Therefore, we say that they have a “vocation” and that they are “called.” Called by whom? It can only be by the Christ-Saviour himself, the Sovereign of the Priesthood.

Sacerdotal power, though a gift of the Holy-Spirit, is developed through practice and a Candidate for the Clergy must become used to training it step by step. He must exercise his vision, his intellectual intuition and his sensitiveness while cultivating his mind so that he can learn to will things to be. Laziness is the enemy of the Clergy and the lazy will never be Clergy, because the Priesthood is a practice performed at all hours and at all times. A well trained will can work on the substance of the ether of the body of the Holy-Spirit and affect other wills, it can also draw towards it great and irresistible currents and fluidic projections. He who prepares himself for being a Clergyman must employ all the methods at his disposal to produce them (these phenomenon) in great quantity.

In addition, the drunkenness of the passion of love is restricted for him. Lo to the Samson who allows himself to fall asleep through the influences of Delilah! In order for the power of this faith to transform itself immediately into action one must also have courage. When a child says: “I cannot do it.” The mother responds to him: “Try.” Faith does not try, it begins with the certitude of doing, and it works with surety because it has all the powers at its disposal. 

Finally, he that aspires to be a Clergyman must isolate himself from too many relations (with others) and carefully chose his contacts in order to be able to concentrate his power within him. To summarize he must know, will, dare, and keep silent, this is the motto of a Candidate for the Clergy.

The Clergy must be sober, chaste, disinterested, impenetrable, inaccessible to all forms of prejudice or terror, impassible, calm, and impermeable to all contradictions and sufferings. They must be gentle and dignified with everyone and never allow themselves to be absorbed in social intercourse.

I am not saying that all of these things are still required in the Church today, only that they show the seriousness with which ordination has been considered in the Church. Clearly this path is not for everyone, though certainly it can be for some members of the Rosicrucian community.

RT: Thanks for answering our questions. For our readers that might be interested in following your future projects, could you tell us what you are presently working on?

I haven’t decided what my next book is going to be about but possible focusses might be the Ancient Gnostic Bridal Chamber or the original OKR+C. However, in the mean time, I plan to publish a book which compiles some of my past articles on various other esoteric traditions and subjects. At least those which I think might be the most helpful to the Esoteric Community.

RT: For the more information on the subjects covered in this interview we include the descriptions of Mathieu Ravignat’s books below. They are all currently available on Amazon.

The Original High Degrees and Theurgical System of the Masonic Elect Cohen Knights of the Universe

The first English language book to reveal the original Martinès de Pasqually Élus Coëns Order high degrees and theurgical system. Including reconstructions of the Maître Élu, Grand Architecte, Chevalier d’Orient, Commandeur d’Orient and Réaux+Croix degrees and their theurgical practices. This book is based on the original archives of the Order found in libraries accross France and includes hitherto unpublished translations of original source material. It also includes a discussion of the nature and location of the major archives.

The French Gnostic Church: Doctrinal and Liturgical Evolution

Based on hitherto unknown and untranslated primary sources, this is the first ever English language book to reveal, in a comprehensive manner, the evolution of the first Gnostic Church in modern times; including its doctrinal statements, organisational structures, sacramental/initiatic systems and liturgical traditions. Divided into four large parts reflecting the major eras of the Church, considerable detail is provided on each era, including never before published translations of many historically important documents.

A Manual for the Gnostic: Doctrines, Prayers, & Practices of the Esoteric Christian Tradition

‘A Manual for the Gnostic’ is a comprehensive resource on the creeds, doctrines, and sacraments of the French Gnostic Church, including rare historical texts which have never before been translated and compiled. This Manual provides many prayers and meditations suitable for Gnostics and mystically minded Christians. Included are instructions for finding one’s Patron, Guiding, and Teaching Angels, rituals of spiritual protection, and techniques for enhancing the feeling of God’s presence in one’s life.

Some of the original texts have been reduced in length for use in this manual. Recommended readings for further study follow each section. Following the Gnostic liturgical calendar, many sections of the Manual are divided into Christic, Sophianic, Paracletic, Angelic and Saintly subsections.

On behalf of all our fans, thank you Mathieu Ravignat for this interview!

Comments enabled below.