Ordo Templi Orientis Phenomenon
|
|---|
Ordo Templi Orientis Phenomenon
|
|---|
|
A selection of original Ordo Templi Orientis initiation rituals authored by Theodor Reuß is presented here, encompassing materials drawn from the Scottish Rite, Cerneau, Royal Arch, Rose Croix, Albert Pike, and Laffon de Ladebat, together with adaptations from the Memphis-Mizraim tradition. Composed in the patently solemn register of his charters and decrees, these texts reflect the same performative authority with which Reuß invested his titles and offices. It should be noted, however, that Aleister Crowley later reworked these rites for his English branch. Reuß neither adopted nor employed Crowley’s remodelled versions (1912–1918) and maintained a deliberate separation between his Ordo Templi Orientis and Crowley’s doctrinal construct of Thelema. Indeed, documentary indications suggest that Crowley was expelled from the O.T.O. in 1921 — a denouement that underscores both the resilience of Reuß’s own framework and the incompatibility of the two men’s visions. Theodor Reuß staged himself with calculated consistency. His inflationary titulature — “Sovereign Grand Master,” “Patriarch,” “General Administrator” — and his operatic charters were not accidents of style, but deliberate instruments of self–elevation. They projected the image of a micro–polity where quasi–state rhetoric and occult consecration served less to convey doctrine than to advertise authority. Behind the respectable theosophical shell, his teaching followed a double register. Publicly, he spoke of Gnosis, polarity, and cosmic unity. Privately, these terms encoded sexual magic, legible only to initiates. In this duplicity lay his advantage: he could trade in bourgeois esotericism while simultaneously selling a more radical product to a smaller clientele. Opportunism, not system, was the core. Compared to Aleister Crowley, who invented spiritual values outright, Reuß appears almost prosaic: where Crowley mythologized, Reuß monetized. The former sought to embody a new religion; the latter to market an order. Succession was handled with the same ambiguity. Rather than a testament, Reuß left fragments, parallel warrants, and rival hints — ensuring posthumous conflict between Heinrich Tränker, Aleister Crowley, and C.S. Jones. The vagueness was no oversight: it kept followers competing and clients dependent, even beyond his death. His alliances with Gérard Encausse, John Yarker, Carl Kellner, Franz Hartmann, and Heinrich Tränker reveal the same pattern. Titles and diplomas were exchanged like currency, each serving as collateral for the other’s claims. The O.T.O. under Reuß was less a coherent school than a bazaar of credentials. His rituals likewise reflect this economy. They are compilations rather than creations: Masonic degrees, Martinist formulas, Gnostic vocabulary, and neo–Templar trappings, all recycled in decree–like prose. Substance is thin; form is traded and repackaged. The political semantics — “Empire,” “Imperium,” “Sovereign” — were compensation for the fragility of his project. His documents were less communications than commodities: proof that authority could be staged, circulated, and sold. In the end, Reuß left no doctrine, only paperwork. His legacy rests not in teaching but in technique: strategic ambiguity, opportunistic networking, and the profitable simulation of authority. |
|
|
On-line articles on Theodor Reuss |
|---|
On November 20th, 1917, Laban de Laban had O.T.O. contracts ratified at considerable cost. As a result, he was given permission to open his own Masonic lodges in accordance with O.T.O. statutes. Following this, on November 3rd, 1917, Laban became the first Grand Master of his 'Mystic Temple'. 
Additionally, there are more photos of Laban de Laban, Ida Hofmann, Henry Oedenkoven, Mary Wiegmann, and many others in this gallery. 
1917 Vertrag / Contract Theodor Reuss — Laban de Laban 
1917 Vertrag / Contract Theodor Reuss — Hans Rudolf Hilfiker both: ["Der Grosse Theodor Reuss Reader"] 
1917 Theodor Reuss — Laban de Laban [Visit the Gallery] 
1918 Theodor Reuss — Laban de Laban, Hans Rudolf Hilfiker, Mary Wiegmann [Robin P. Marchev: "Wahrheitssucher und Schwindler. Aus der Chronik der Loge Libertas et Fraternitas. 1916-1925." Oberengstringen 1990.] 
1919 Theodor Reuss — Hans Rudolf Hilfiker, Engelhard Pargaetzi, Rolf Merlitschek, Martin Bergmaier ["Materialien Zum O.T.O."]
|
Ordo Templi Orientis: "Hermetic Brotherhood of Light"/Order of the Asiatic Brethren |
|---|
|
|
|
|---|
Ordo Templi Orientis |
|---|
|
|
English: Theodor Reuss and the Brothers of Light in the Seven Churches of Asia. The origins of Brotherhood of Light of Theodor Reuss.
Deutsch: Die Brueder des Lichtes der sieben Gemeinden in Asien. Theodor Reuss' Hermetische Bruderschaft des Lichtes. Français : Les Frères de Lumière dans les Sept Églises d'Asie. Les origines de la Fraternité de Lumière de Theodor Reuss. The Gnostic Neo-Christians (1917). Deutsch: Das wahre Geheimnis der Freimaurerei und das Mysterium der hl. Messe. 1917. English: The True Secret of Masonry and the Mystery of the Holy Mass. Français : Le Secret de la Maçonnerie et le Mystère de la Sainte Messe. To the extent that the pre-Crowley Reuss O.T.O. rituals are concerned, they are relatively easy to obtain through conventional Masonic sources. Reuss only administratively granted the I° ("Probationer") and II° ("Minerval") degrees. Individuals from these degrees were part of the "Probationers Class" of membership referred to in the Order's 1917 Constitution. In practical terms, "Probationer" membership appears to have been a corresponding membership, similar to the Associate Membership introduced in the Crowleyan version. It was typical under Reuss' leadership to initiate individuals into the O.T.O. at a degree equivalent to their initiation in other Masonic organizations. Therefore, Crowley joined the Reuss O.T.O. by virtue of his 33°, which he had obtained from another source. In Reuss' time, III° members were required to go through all three Masonic Blue Lodge Degrees, in case they had not already received them. Despite various attempts over several centuries, there has never been any apparent standardization of these rituals among regular Masons. It is unclear whether this was the case in Reuss' O.T.O. During Reuss' era, most initiators had obtained their Blue Lodge Degrees under Masonic jurisdictions outside of the O.T.O. Although Reuss had a charter to perform the rituals of John Yorker's Ancient & Primitive Rite, it does not appear that the use of the Memphis & Mizraim craft degrees was ever widespread in Reuss' O.T.O. Crowley's modified rituals for what is now known as the Oasis degrees appear to have been the first attempt to implement a special "O.T.O." type of these rituals.
After Aleister Crowley was expelled from the O.T.O., the rituals were completely purged of any thelemic references. Regarding Crowleys antidemocratic, racist and misanthropic writings, current followers point out: "The reason [...] aspects of Thelema are omitted [in public discussion] indicates the actual problem with presenting Thelema as a religion and attempting to get Thelema sanctioned by the government or approved by the public: Thelema is ultimately in contrast to and transgressive of normative society. Thelema rejects the morals and values of normative society and acts to transgress and violate these norms. From the inclusion of intoxicants in ritual, to the positive view of sexuality, which frequently is seen as promoting promiscuity, to the pro–authoritarian and Nietzschian aspects of Thelema, normative society has much to reject in Thelema and conversely, Thelema encourages its adherents to reject most aspects of normative society.". See The Templar's Reich.
|
Some of these rituals and instructions are published in their original German, English or French version in following print books:
|
|
When Theodor Reuss died in October 1923, he left behind not merely an esoteric organization without a clear rule of succession, but also a symbolically charged estate whose disposition would shape the development of the Ordo Templi Orientis for decades. The ensuing struggle for power was conducted not on a juridical plane, but on sacral, political, and rhetorical terrain. As Heinrich Tränker, Charles Stansfeld Jones, and Aleister Crowley each articulated his claim to succession, questions of ownership, legitimacy, and spiritual authority became inextricably entangled. What begins here is an ideological and structural rupture in which the question “Who is the O.H.O.?” signifies far more than a matter of personnel — it becomes a question about the very nature of esoteric authority itself.
The Sealed Shrine Dramatis Personae:
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
