Monday, August 17, 2009

The Rest of the Questions, Answered

In "Questions Answered...Mostly!", I noted that the Bishop had left a couple of questions unanswered.

Well, he has since gotten around to answering them...by editing them into the same post.

In regards to whether he takes offense to my username, "The Overseer", and to one who has "appropriated" it (i.e., ripped it off from me), he simply says, "No".

As to why no disclosure is made in the first edition of The Highgate Vampire: The Infernal World of the Undead Unearthed at London’s Famous Highgate Cemetery and Environs (London: British Occult Society, 1985), that the woman labeled "Luisa" in several photographs is actually a model (and why he even included such representations of her in the first place), he writes:
Given the outcome [i.e. Luisa's death and return as a vampire, later to be staked by Manchester -ed.], it would have been inappropriate to have done anything else. That particular edition was published just three years after the case had been finally closed. It is made clear in the text that "Lusia" is a pseudonym.
Yes, it is made clear that Luisa is a pseudonym. On pages 45-46 of The Highgate Vampire (1985), he wrote:
Among the many people who contacted me as a direct result of this public pronouncement [i.e. his claim that dead foxes, found drained of blood in Highgate Cemetery, were killed by a vampire -ed.] was the sister of a beautiful twenty-two-year old woman, whom I shall call Luisa.
However, that side-steps the actual question I asked:
In the first edition of "The Highgate Vampire" (1985), why was there no disclosure that the photographic depictions of Luisa were actually those of a model? And, why did you choose to employ a model to recreate "scenes" with Luisa, in the first place?
That's right: the "photographic depictions".

As I noted in "The Mystery of Luisa, Pt. 1", there are several pictures of a woman clearly referred to as "Luisa".

That is where the next part of the question comes in: if the woman in the picture isn't Luisa, then why go to the trouble of hiring (presumably) a model to "recreate" her, and then insert her in "scenes" supposed to have taken place? This even includes having a picture of her on the cover.

Especially when no disclosure was made in the book, that a model had been used in the first place.

Either way, he has since included a picture of the actual "Luisa" in an entry for his blog, Metaphysical Meanderings:
Lusia has never been identified by her real name and, until now, a photograph at the time of my knowing her has not been published. Sufficient decades have perhaps passed to permit one.
Now, in question 10, I asked him:
In 1973, you founded the Ordo Sancti Graal. Yet, in the first edition of "The Highgate Vampire" (1985), you refer to yourself as "not pre-eminently religious" and "a secular person handling consecrated material as a protection against hostile psychic forces, I am practicing "white magic"." What happened in the gap between you founding a Christian order and engaging in the occult (like the necromantic summoning of Luisa, as detailed in the same book)?
The quotes are from page 18 of The Highgate Vampire (1985) (not page 12, as I mistakenly cited in "An Open Query on Religious Belief").

His direct response to these citations was:
I stand by what I wrote. I find it neither incompatible with my founding Ordo Sancti Graal, nor my later taking holy orders; though, of course, I was not in holy orders at the time. I have known many pre-eminently religious people throughout my life and do not count myself among them. I neither belong to a monastic order, nor am I imbued with the ideals of churchianity (see From Satan To Christ and The Grail Church). If I am to be pre-eminently anything it would be "spiritual," not "religious."
That's fair enough, except here's more from page 18, which draws on more of an occultic/pagan/new age parallel:
The set of symbols I work with are predominantly Christian, yet you will find in the text that I cast a circle, what some might call a Magic Circle. While I am not a witch in any sense of the word, I suppose as a secular person handling consecrated material as a protection against hostile psychic forces, I am practicing "white magic". The Circle once cast is a ritualised barrier, a consecrated sanctuary; like a church, a mosque or synagogue - like Avebury, Stonehenge and Glastonbury.
Now, in regards to my question about him engaging in necromantic acts (specifically as an occultic practice), he says:
Every exorcist engages in the summoning of demons. Vampires/demons are not the dead. They might masquerade as such, but they are not God's true dead. Hence the act of summoning a demonic manifestation for the purpose of its banishment is not the occult art of necromancy, but rather the Christian practice of exorcism. Necromancy is divination by raising the spirits of the dead.
He is correct in asserting that necromancy, by definition, is used for this purpose (i.e. divination).

However, when he describes his intent to summon the undead Luisa through an invocation on page 134 of The Highgate Vampire (1985), one must wonder about such semantics:
But what I was about to do fell under a shadowy category whose purpose was usually more sinister. Did not the Encyclopedia of Occultism state: "There is no doubt that Necromancy is the touch-stone of the dark arts for if, after careful preparation, the adept can carry through to a successful issue the raising of the dead from the other world, he has proved the power of his art."
Indeed, the incantations used on pages 143-144 are modified versions of necromantic spells cited in such works as Arthur Edward Waite's
The Book of Ceremonial Magic (1911).

8 comments:

Demonologist said...

In case you are unable to access Carol Dietzler's Facebook profile, here are some interesting observations she has made about you recently. I am nevertheless slightly puzzled as to how she decided you are a "fundamentalist" because that is not the impression you give most other people who know the history of your interest in events surrounding Highgate Cemetery from forty years ago.

Anyway, here are her comments (the dots are not edits but her own):

"I've wondered many times about where his head and heart really are at...it's a complete juxtaposition from where he seemed to be at when at BSM forums on MSN...he defended the bishop....swagger and vacillation....fundamentalists are not sturdy in their faith only rigid about ver batim Scriptures and their rote memorization of Scripture, cult-like is what I've observed. On the supernatural he came across even to the point of mocking--but at low level....still, I noticed it.

"He has a literary take on vampires based on the Stoker tradition or version.....and when this was clear to me...I began viewing his posts cautiously....he also struck me as a new believer-type, immature in the Lord, and taken with the emotionalism of viewing Scripture and belief at a surface level and....he didn't remain solid nor loyal in defense of the bishop.

"I don't know if I mentioned this but if he had real questions or was seriously skeptical about BSM the appropriate decent way to exit would be to stay quiet in respect for the title and position of the bishop and simply click the 'unsubscribe' button at the forum or 'I don't want to be in this group' button (or whatever button was offered for exiting the group).

"What Hogg did was draw attention to a situation that was already fueled by F[arrant] for years and years and made more mockery out of the bishop.....and before ANYTHING A-Hogg did, he should have done objective serious research from credible sources--and that would have taken time....a person use to be innocent until proven guilty.... it is condemnation and guilt BEFORE investigation---and this is grandiose error on his part.

"I asked him once 'did you read any of the bishop's book and he said 'no'. Maybe he has by this point, but the real bottom line is he doesn't like the bishop's approach to belief, church and the least, vampires. But he knew that from the beginning of joining the forums. There was deeper more sinister underlying hostility that I recognized--but I don't believe he even knew that about himself. He allowed his malignant ears to be tickled by F[arrant] and that's all that was needed.

"That type of reaction is common here in the States when there is no foundation and the person is a neophyte and tries to usurp the given authority of the church--no matter what church."

The Overseer said...

I've been able to access her Facebook profile.

However, I found no trace (on her actual profile) of any references to me. Not on her "Wall", "Info", "Blessings 4 U" or "just dropping by to say hi" components of her page.

I did, however, notice that she's aligned herself with multiple Manchester-affiliated groups and counts Arminius Vámbéry, Catherine Fearnley and Seán Manchester among her Facebook friends.

I'm glad she has such a self-righteous take on me (presuming she actually wrote what you say she did, considering you didn't bother to link to the source), but I do wonder how the topic of myself sprung up.

So I'm gonna go out on a limb and presume she was actually responding to a topic set up by the Bishop or one of his cronies.

However, I should point out, despite her criticisms of myself, she stayed a member of my MSN Group, Did a Wampyr Walk in Highgate? and provided multiple postings on it.

As to me drawing attention to the "Feud", let it be known that Carol was one of the ones who wanted to keep it alive on the C&S forum when a rather dubious vote was put in place, to shut it down (even if the "feud" was actually started by the board's admins).

As to allowing my "malignant ears" to be "tickled by Farrant", let it also be noted that my writings have offered criticisms of both parties.

What Carol has written (again, presuming she did) is rather scattershot and broad and takes on the usual "if you're not for us, you're against us" VRS rhetoric.

Which, of course means, she's become another cog in the wheel of the VRS propaganda machine.

I hope she comes to her senses.

carol said...

yeah I wrote it and you didn't even see half of it
SO what
You're a moronic idiot for being involved or even talking to anyone who aligns himself with the dark realm. It's clearly stated throughout Scripture. You're also immature involved in all this back and forth investigation and gossip and for ever-abusing a pastor-priest; this is NO DIFFERENT than walking up to someone you just don't like cause you're a bully and cold-cocking him/her.
You're a f______whore, bedding down, coupling, having intercourse with a self-proclaimed witch/etc,satanist. Anathema to you dumb shit. There's NO excuse for ungodly rebellion and whoredom---as you proclaimed Christianity, and now f___ a satanic male whore...that also makes you spiritually a homosexual.
SLUT. PUKE.

Demonologist said...

"What Carol has written (again, presuming she did) is rather scattershot and broad and takes on the usual 'if you're not for us, you're against us' VRS rhetoric."

That is not "VRS rhetoric."

Jesus Christ said: "He who is not with Me is against Me."

As a Baptist, shouldn't you be familiar with Christ's words?

"I hope she comes to her senses."

She and others, of course, might say the same of you and not without good reason.

If you are in any doubt as to whether Carol wrote what she wrote on her Facebook wall, why not ask her yourself?

The Overseer said...

Hi Carol,

Presuming that's you (you're a lot more mild-mannered in your e-mail correspondence), here's my response to your various charges.

But, firstly, if what was written wasn't eve "half of it", would you care to link me to the rest?

If I'm a "moronic idiot" for being "involved" with someone (I presume you mean occasionally conversing with Farrant), then you've got a lot to learn about Christian piety, don't you.

The back and forth nature of this blog is no worse than what you've been doing elsewhere, maligning me yourself and being incredibly judgmental.

We know what Scripture says about that, don't we.

If we look at the liberal doses of abuse you've threaded through your comment, you're hardly helping your case, are you.

I hope you actually take the time to read through the blogs here, and not just hurl abuse at me.

I think it's possible that you've been a tad brainwashed, as your lack of objectivity and decorum clearly reveals.

The Overseer said...

I'm afraid it is VRS rhetoric. Same old regurgitations.

Christ did say that, I agree. But since when is the Bishop, Christ?

Surely that's a bit egotistical.

Are you genuinely implying that if I criticise the VRS, I am somehow going against Christ Himself?

Hmm. I still hope Carol comes to her senses. Did you not read through that vile comment she wrote?

And she's on the Bishop's side?

Good luck!

I did ask Carol if she wrote that garbage about me. She (again, presuming it's her) confirmed it, indicating there was more.

Carol and I have enjoyed a fairly amiable correspondence in the past, so it's quite odd seeing her rant on about me, seemingly out of the blue.

I guess chillin' with the Bish must bring out the worst in people!

Oh, and interestingly enough, I noticed she follows her own blog, like you do.

What a coincidence!

Demonologist said...

"Christ did say that, I agree. But since when is the Bishop, Christ? Surely that's a bit egotistical[?]"

I fail to make the jump from you attributing a sentiment to the VRS, me refuting it and reminding you that the sentiment you identify was expressed by Christ, and you then asking "since when is the Bishop, Christ?"

How do you make that connection?

I would say the bishop is one of Christ's shepherds and that all Christians, yourself included if you are one, are obliged to heed Christ's words and try to obey them. As an ordained man of the cloth and a bishop, Seán Manchester, in accordance with Catholic theology and doctrine, is another Christ (alter Christus) which is the ancient title of priests. This will not sit easily with a Baptist such as yourself, yet this is how priests and bishops are understood in the Catholic world.

"I guess chillin' with the Bish must bring out the worst in people!"

That is a judgement on your part which lacks foundation and substance. What were you telling Carol about "being incredibly judgmental"?

People who seek Seán Manchester's friendship and are not against him are not turned away by him. And if they employ unfortunate language or seem emotionally charged at times, he will still not turn them away. People know what is right and proper. He knows they cannot always live up to what is right and proper. He nevertheless leads by example.

Surely this is what Christ would want?

The Overseer said...

"I fail to make the jump from you attributing a sentiment to the VRS, me refuting it and reminding you that the sentiment you identify was expressed by Christ, and you then asking "since when is the Bishop, Christ?""

Easy. Let me explain: you justified the "you're either with us or against us" rhetoric and juxtaposed it with Christ's words. What do you think that implies?

Certainly something very interesting, considering that not all the VRS's members are even Christian.

"I would say the bishop is one of Christ's shepherds and that all Christians, yourself included if you are one, are obliged to heed Christ's words and try to obey them."

You would say the Bish is one of Christ's shepherds. In your opinion. But did it not also warn to beware of wolves in sheeps' clothing?

Obeying Christ's words (as you should do, yourself, presuming you're a Christian) doesn't mean I have to kow-tow to the Bish.

"As an ordained man of the cloth and a bishop, Seán Manchester, in accordance with Catholic theology and doctrine, is another Christ (alter Christus) which is the ancient title of priests."

Yes, "Catholic theology". But, as you've noted, I'm not Catholic.

"This will not sit easily with a Baptist such as yourself, yet this is how priests and bishops are understood in the Catholic world."

Have fun!

"That is a judgement on your part which lacks foundation and substance. What were you telling Carol about "being incredibly judgmental"?"

Lacks foundation? Well, I've already established your fraudulent and underhanded practices, and Carol lets herself run off at the mouth like that while berating me for not being a proper Christian?

Not to mention your continuous diatribes against Farrant.

What happened to forgiveness?

"People who seek Seán Manchester's friendship and are not against him are not turned away by him."

No, he just stops conversing with them if he feels things are a bit "iffy" (i.e., Demant, Brautigam, Ecker).

If they're not against him, they certainly do a good job (like yourself) of putting people off him.

As the old adage goes, with friends like these...

"And if they employ unfortunate language or seem emotionally charged at times, he will still not turn them away."

Again, tell that to Demant, Brautigam or Ecker.

"People know what is right and proper. He knows they cannot always live up to what is right and proper. He nevertheless leads by example."

Of hunting down vampires and conducting necromantic rituals in graveyards. Got it.

"Surely this is what Christ would want?"

Sure, if it was getting lived up to.

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails