covenants and house mysteries

Games Discussion Ars Magica
21

Well, yes and no.... "Mystery Cult" can be a very specific label for a certain type of Greco-Roman religious practice. Christianity does not fit that definition. It can also be used in a wider sense of a religion with an emphasis on mystical experience, which Christianity traditionally is (at least in theory).

I think the point of confusion is that most church attendees are not very far along in their initiatory lives. There is a big difference between knowing that Holy Communion is sharing the body and blood of christ in union with fellow believers and actually experiencing it as that. If you are just eating some flat bread and doing a shot of grape juice or wine, it ain't much of an experience. But when you enter the mystery open to actual mystical experience, its genuinely a powerful experience.

Modern 'low church' and mainstream protestant practice tends to veer away from the mystical, sadly. But high church rites and pentecostals very much are still mysteries.

Anyway, back to the game.... :stuck_out_tongue: Obviously different cults will have different views on things. That's pretty explicit in the rules already. But none of them can 'just' share their lore with other people. It doesn't work. No matter how much someone writes down the 'secrets' of Enigmatic Wisdom, no one is going to learn it without effectively initiating and changing their worldview.

Even practical matters like advanced alchemy are more than just information you could get from a book. Hermetic magical practice (in the historical sense) is about changing the self to conform to higher and higher levels of reality. Bonisagus and his House has already distilled the "mere information" gleaned from many Mysteries.

The difference between Hermetic shapeshifting and the Heartbeast or between Hermetic enchanting and Verditius magic isn't just "lack of knowledge." Similiarly, beyond hermetic and vulgar alchemy, you are not just taking graduate level alchemy classes, you are involved in a mystical process of changing oneself and how one sees the world such that you now can interact with substances on a higher, more philosophical level. You are fundamentally changing the way your magic works on the world. Its not the same as getting more ranks of Muto or Magic Theory.

So cults should definitely have many different views on how their mystery should be shared. But even the most open won't be able to just say "oh yes, the formula is e=mc2. Now you know."

22

It was sometimes a secret society...not in 1220, obviously, but the early Church was. It was not the mainstream state religion. If you were Christian you got fed to the lions.

This is beside the point, however. The "Mystery" part of Mystery Cult doesn't necessarily mean "Secret". The "Mystery" means Mystery in the theological sense, which is: a truth not understood rationally but revealed by the divine. In modern parlance, when people say that they have Faith, they mean that they believe in a Mystery.

Now, it is true that some Mystery Cults might also be secrets. But that is a different issue. For example, House Bjornaer is a Mystery Cult, but it is no secret that Bjornaer have a different paradigm of magic based around the idea that people have ancestral animal forms.

The critical bit here is "and embrace" --- what you are embracing is the Mystery. The fact that (merely) knowing about Christianity is something different to "having Faith", or "embracing Christianity", is what shows us that Christianity is a Mystery Cult.

For example, I have read the bible. I have read books about the bible. I can recognise and understand references to the bible in literature. I have learnt the gospel. I even think it quite likely that the Romans crucified at least one itinerant rabbi during their occupation of Palestine. But I have not "embraced" Christianity. I know about Christianity, but I don't believe. I have no faith. I am not an initiate of the Mystery.

23

It depends what you mean by "early", in this case. Do you mean, say, before Constantine the Great? Or do you mean as far back as when they had secret signs and met in house churches to avoid being put to death in the Arena?

Not all ealry mystery cults had intricate heirarchies. I'd point out, for example, that the Mithrans had fewer than modern Chrisitans do.

I'd also note to you that you do have level of election in the Church. You have probationary members, who undergo a mystery (baptism) and so become members and gain a power (eternal life), but then these may undergo a mystery (Ordination) and become priests who gain powers (may reconcile the sinful with God, may perform other mysteries as mystogogue) and these priests may undergo a second ritual (election) and become bishops who gain further powers. In the East, it goes a slightly different way (member, monk, bishop, archbishop or member, marriage, priest effectively).

No, I think the main difference is that it won, so now when you say "Well, the Mass is based on the dismissal of unbelievers from the sacred space before the mystical transubstatiation" people don't go "Oh, cultic space! Cool!" Familiarity has stripped it on the coolness of bull sacrifice and lesbian orgies. Back in the day, though, it was cannibalism and vampirism of God himself. That was pretty hardcore.

This is true in some cases, but by this argument Mithranism isn't a mystery cult.

Your mystery cults are, therefore, not based on divine revelation. That's a sound model for many of the Greek cults, but for some Roman and later Italian cults I'd argue it's wrong. I'd also note that Christianity does have deeper mysteries: it's just that we don't accept their magicalness anymore, and so when I say that Marriage is a mystery, on some level people do not believe me. Similarly, when I say that Ordination is a mystery, they don't quite click that, yes, actually, it is.

How can true cosmological gnosis not keep itself? If you really learn how the universe works, how does that not change you? How does knowing True Names not change you? Demonological secrets keep themselves, for example because if you -use- true names you pay a price for that which tends to prevent you spreading the name.

That's viable, sure, but even if you have knowledge that can be stolen, for it sto be a mystery cult, rather than just sime guys with a cool technology they are keeping secret, requires that once you steal their stuff, it changes you in a profound way. Lacking a spiritual dimension, it's not a mystery cult, it's just some guys with a secret technology.

24

I think Timothy has an excellent point in refering to the Sacrament of Marriage as a Mystery of Christianity. Heck, regardless of the religon, it is a mystery to me! I mean, I see people do it, I know people that are married, but I myself look at it and I am like "why in the world would you want to put yourself through that?". I am sure it is a wonderful thing, but I just don't understand it. :smiley: (my tongue is in my cheek by the way :laughing:)

25

Hmm. I guess it's a semantics issue at this point. Thanks for giving me greater insight into Mystery Cults and Christianity, all ! :slight_smile:

I'm currently undergoing the Mystery of having children... it's a way deeper mystery, to be sure.

26

As a side point, Marriage as as Christian mystery is a fairly recent thing as I understand it, and seems to have been heavily driven by political and economic reasons. (I base this on vague understandings from various sources, and welcome more information ifI'm wrong). How this affects Magi is, of course, a largely moot point but if no public ceremony is required for a marriage then I can see lusty Magi getting into trouble fairly easily.

Oh, and for a beautiful example of a mystery cult in action, both in initiation and practice, as well as propagation, "The Dragon Waiting" By John M Ford is brilliant. It's a lovely book by any lights, but the treatment of mysteries in it has greatly shaped how I think of them.

27

Yes and no... it was always an element of the Christian faith, one of the universally accepted sacraments (meaning Jesus explicitly mentions it, unlike some of the others). But the big formal ceremony requirement is recent. Even into the Ars time frame, it wasn't necessary to have a priest preside for a wedding to be official. Trothplighting, even if unwitnessed, was considered sufficient and binding. The ceremony was normally only done for the wealthy and its main function was to make sure everyone knew it was legally binding and there wouldn't be any "he said, she said" stuff later.

It was, as you say, governments who were most interested in formalizing things so they would be binding contracts in a court of law. That really has little to do with the religious element of the marriage.