I must also publicly apologize for misquoting the pen-name “Sr. Julia” as “Madria Julia”. This was a bad slip as it gives a wrong impression of assuming “priestly” authority. In fact the articles in question all appeared over the name “Sr. Julia” and later “Donna Julia”, not “Madria Julia”. Again, my sincere apologies. I have now corrected this in the printed interview.
An exchange also took place on the Chelouranyan site Shining World which I think may be found helpful. I will reproduce it here with kind permission from Sushuri-chei who wrote them.
Here is the question as raised there:
Good morning lovely Maids. Please give me your loving indulgence….as I am quite concerned by a strange thing found online.
There is an interview posted by a woman claiming the name Madria Julia here…
…that has quite confused me. I’m unsure how to even explain her strange ideas, especially the implication of ‘ownership’ over the holy scriptures, so perhaps a maid of wisdom could read the interview?
And this is Sushuri-chei’s answer (she originally followed my misquotation and asked me to correct it here):
Rayati Miss Urania. Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
I do not think there is any cause for concern here. “Sister Julia” was essentially a fictitious character connected with the very early history of the filianist movement. So no one actually is/was Sister Julia though the name was used in the publication of various articles. So I do not think the interviewee is saying that she is Sister Julia but that she published work under that name.
Neither do I think that she is claiming ownership of the Scriptures. She is stating her own role in their creation, and I think truthfully.
For a long time now (since its foundation) the Chapel of Our Mother God has taken a very cautious approach to the Scriptures – saying, for example on the main page about them.
“Some regard these writings as true living Scriptures, while others see them essentially as inspirational poetry telling a form of the Archetypal Mother and Daughter Mythos and expounding sacred Truths.”
The idea that they are anything more than “inspirational poems” has never been an article of faith. That there is a great deal of traditional wisdom contained in them I think is clearly true. The Sutras mostly state fundamental truths that are attested by all the world’s traditions.
The Mythos puts into poetic form something that might have been akin to the mythic language in which True Feminine Religion would have been expressed, but I don’t think any orthodox Filianist has held that they are anything more than that.
It is because of that that the Chapel and we and everyone has avoided things like priestly orders, sacraments etc. Because we simply don’t have a Tradition.
The Chapel says about Deanism and Filianism:
“Both positions are essentially humble. Grateful and happy for the fact that Dea has given us the simple means to love and worship Her. Not attempting to grab for ourselves or create out of nothing the things we do not possess. We do not have a full Tradition, and making or “reconstructing” a “tradition” with modern Western minds and attitudes does more harm than good.”
The most basic position is and was that it is possible and legitimate to see God as Feminine, and that even though we have no tradition we can humbly turn to Her.
I think the writer in question, feeling responsible for her role in introducing the Scriptures wanted to clarify the position and disclaim anything more than she believes to be the simple truth.
She takes no position on the question of spiritual inspiration and makes it clear that “Even if I did, my opinion is nothing more than my opinion.”
I think we would all be much happier if we had Scriptures of unquestioned antiquity and traditional authority. But we know that isn’t the case. I think the interviewee is trying to be honest and honorable in allaying any rumors and giving her account of the matter.