[Help] Is joining the catholic church worth it for protection in the working with infernal spirits?

[Euderion]

Sorcery in Tibetan Buddhist is considered to carry a heavy karmic burden that must be purified through - get this - confession and ethical discipline. Hmmm.

But also meditation on emptiness and ritual purification practices. The Vajrasattva purification practice is the most widely used here.

Its quite a complicated topic. Saying bluntly they had to develop ways around that problem with karma (as a dogma) to simply survive and be able to defend themselves in a war and to be able to frame "bad things" in different ways which are in line with their teachings. So they did. They adapted the teachings. So we can find multiple positions on that topic through the centuries. What you said is a one of them. Positions of those medieval tibetan buddhists were, due to very different circumstances, quite different from those we hear from the teachers now. They were quite suprising to be honest. Contemporary buddhists have a luxury to detest and judge those medieval practices, because they are not in a open war. Nevertheless it is possible to do those things in a buddhist context, escpecially if its considered as defense and yes it might require things you said or other things to do also (like intention and how do you work with emotions, whether a buddhist experience them in their poisonous or purified form).
maybe the best for the guy posing the original question would be to practice and invoke some of those hardcore protective buddhist deities, which every tibetan lineage has, so he dont have to do those things himself. And yes, to practice those purfications and meditations like you said along that.

 

[MorganBlack]

Tibetan Buddhism is cool. A number of Satanists and Setians - like Zeena LaVey and Nikolas Schreck - have converted to "work off" whatever it is (karma, contagion, darkness, Titanic soot - whatever the various traditions call it) - that may be from the added chaos of dealing with the paranormal level of reality.

See Hansen here for the disordering chaos of the Paranormal level of the Daimonic. The increased cancer rates, the poltergeists, etc.

Book – EPUB/MOBI - George P. Hansen -The Trickster and the Paranormal (2001)

I looked around this could not be found. About the Book Paranormal and supernatural events have been reported for millennia. They have fostered history’s most important cultural transformations (e.g., via the miracles of Moses, Jesus, Mohammed). Paranormal phenomena are frequently portrayed...

wizardforums.com

In my opinion Catholicism makes the most sense in the context of Hell / Hades / the Chthonic underworld, and actual sorcery - not playing demonic dress-up to p0wn the normies, or shock your parents, or "stick it to the Man."

Without the Harowing of Hell the symbolic world makes no sense. Where is the Tipheretic Underworld Solar Hero to find a home? I don't see any coherent enough to hold that mystery, and I looked.

Anyway, in the VERY paranormal world of sorcery, the Church is at it's best, most intelligible function when it is is apotropaic AND ascetic, as a bulwark against the hostile, daemonic, passion-driven element of the underworld cosmos.

So it stands between the person and paranormal chaos - the raw, devouring, disintegrating forces of nature and the passions. In that role, the Church is coherent and even noble. And it does not get enough credit. Other ordering systems like Theravada Buddhism and higher-order daimons (who act more like Angels of Purgatory, from what I have seen) work too, so I am not saying you have to convert.

You have to bring order to this as the solar Underworld hero. The universal myths are very clear here.

Oh! But if we take the CCC and use the same structural logic - hierarchy, mediation, ritual authority when applied to legit Underworld "Hell" (and not people who just use Hell as social set dressings to sow moral confusion and poke at Christianity) - and turn it against the Logos itself, against meaning, order, and intelligibility, then the Church stops being a bulwark and becomes the mechanics of paganism - especially Roman state-run paganism.

That is religio civili - a cult of the institution, of order-for-order's-sake, of authority as such, where the numen is the State (or the Church-as-State) and the virtue demanded toward the institution rather than orientation toward the Good.

Please know this is a genuinely serious charge that comes from within Catholicism itself. The French Jesuit theologian - whose name escapes me put a word to this idolatrous ecclesiology, and what some theologians call "ecclesiological monophysitism" (This I had to look this up, yeesh) the Church absorbing Christ rather than mediating him.

My bigger point here is the Paranormal forces us to separate all this all again into non-overlapping domains, and give them their correct space, imho, and not treat is as random beliefs with no meaning or structure to them . And having a mediating friends in the form of a powerful dead person like a saint, makes more sense , and not just a matter of personal religious therapy.

 

[SeekerPS]

The Church is never going to give its benediction to sorcery, summoning demons, necromancy, or harming people. That much is pretty much non-negotiable, and it always has been. Sorcery is often very, very mean. The Church cannot endorse violence, no matter what it's atheist and pagan detractors say.

Catechism-level Catholicism is solid general advice to live a good life. And I do not want to wipe away the tension there. But 97% of "magic" is usually this White-as-Snow Mental Mysticism magic (including Lavey Satanism) - which is formerly Christian New Thought dressed up with edge-lord spookiness. Or it is summoning angels, working on thinking positively, and generally trying to figure out who you are and what being a person in this world means. Generally positive things.

The 3% of us who do take the grimoires seriously - and the even tiny percentage who use them to summon demons - which are not even demons but more like Lovecraftian underworld elementals personifying the raw, tempestuous forces of Nature, imho - those of us who do, many of us are quite devout Christians.

We need to remember that "witchcraft" before Wicca - and for most of the planet then and now - meant maleficia: harming people with necromantic spirits. Not this white-as-the-driven-snow nature mysticism - which often used Catholic, Christian, and Jewish ritual tech (see the photos of Alex Sanders - the "king of the Witches" in a circle with Jewish god name)- but with mythical characters drawn from Victorian-era poetry and some academic scraps. Whatever. More eye-rolling than something to be worried about.

In medieval and early modern Europe when someone was accused of witchcraft the crime was the use of necromantic spirits - demons, the dead, or both (demons are used to control the dead here - think Cerberus ) - to harm people, animals, or property. That's it. Not that you used herbs and crystals or honored nature. They also do not want you engage in idolatry and Folk Catholic sorcerers are very specific to treat this all as business contract - just like you would with your mechanic Dave. Nobody is raising Dave up cosmic proportions as God. That makes no sense.

Let me add here, in this Symbolic World (per Pageau) the rational order of the cosmos for a Catholic is literally Christ, regardless of the symbols used - and this not a modern invention or a syncretic patchwork. If you are genuinely engaged with meaning, are genuinely trying to understand the rational order of the cosmos, you are already in contact with the Logos - whether you call him Christ, Tao, Xeper, Ma'at, Hermes, or the Cosmic Order.

The medieval Church wasn't stupid about this. I need to look at when that got added, but at some point it It made a distinction that got flattened into a simple "astrology bad" where the real spiritual issue was you can't use the stars to sabotage your trust in God. Even "occultism" encourages the venial sin of "scrupulosity" - a faithless optimizing and scheming that makes your soul small I am most guilty of this often and Catholic Marian Mysticism helps me to remember remember to trust in Creation, even when it appears broken. This is the Catholicism I value. Not the legalistic one.

Oh, there are dictates against homosexuality in there too. I do not like them, having gay friends. But Catholic families have always still loved, embraced, and cared for their gay children, compared to American Protestants who treat their own children with outright cruelty and hatred. Not sure how it that will even get "fixed" but Catholicism is and has to act like planetary level religion (and is on track to be the first) and many cultures it is part of are very conservative.

I agree in that they will never endorse sorcery

I disagree on why tho. They have endorsed violence many times crusades, witch hunts, the subjugation of native Americans in the new world

they won’t do it, just because the church wants to monopolize the relationship between god and humans. Theurgy or goetia, it implies that now you are not recurring to the priest in search of an answer to your problems, that means, they have less power over the flock

 

[Nembra]

I agree in that they will never endorse sorcery

I disagree on why tho. They have endorsed violence many times crusades, witch hunts, the subjugation of native Americans in the new world

they won’t do it, just because the church wants to monopolize the relationship between god and humans. Theurgy or goetia, it implies that now you are not recurring to the priest in search of an answer to your problems, that means, they have less power over the flock

That's not exactly true though. The Church is firstly a spiritual construct guided by a set of principles. If a Christian endorses actions contradicting those principles they are by definition going against the Church, even if they were the Pope himself. That being said, the Church does indeed endorse violence on certain justified occasions like self-defence - not in the cases you listed though. Well, mostly, the crusades are a mixed bag actually.

Theurgy and goetia have most of the time understandings of spiritual world that are starkly irreconciliable with Christianity. You are baselessly interpreting a moralised narrative into a purely structural contradiction - same as you can't be a Christian if you don't believe in God, you can't be a Christian while operating under the assumption that angels can be commanded by anyone knowing a correct method.

 

[MorganBlack]

the Church does indeed endorse violence on certain justified occasions like self-defence

Thank you for that correction, Nembra. I should have written that the Church will never endorse the initiation of violence. Self-defense, and arguably the defense of nation, community, and family, are not only justifiable, but a duty, and includes those with legitimate group authority having the duty to repel aggressors against the broader civil community.

 

[Nembra]

Thank you for that correction, Nembra. I should have written that the Church will never endorse the initiation of violence. Self-defense, and arguably the defense of nation, community, and family, are not only justifiable, but a duty, and includes those with legitimate group authority having the duty to repel aggressors against the broader civil community.

I prefer to just say "aggression", in principle it can be justified to initiate violence against non-violent forms of malice.

 

[SeekerPS]

Self-defense, and arguably the defense of nation, community, and family, are not only justifiable, but a duty, and includes those with legitimate group authority having the duty to repel aggressors against the broader civil community.

Not according to the gospels anyway.

 

[Nembra]

Not according to the gospels anyway.

Respectfully, your expertise in interpreting them is questionable.

 

[SeekerPS]

Respectfully, your expertise in interpreting them is questionable.

Respectfully I can be wrong on many things. But this has to be one of the clearest things of the gospels. It’s the central theme of the sermon of the mountain.

Matthew 5:38–39 (KJV)

“Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.”

Matthew 5:43–44 (KJV)

“Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.”

Luke 9:54–56 (King James Version)

“And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?
But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.
For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.”

Matthew 5:40 (KJV)

“And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.”

Matthew 5:41 (KJV)

“And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.”

Matthew 5:5 (KJV)

“Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.”

Matthew 5:9 (KJV)

“Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.”

Matthew 26:52–54 (KJV)


“Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.
Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?
But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?”

 

[Nembra]

Respectfully I can be wrong on many things. But this has to be one of the clearest things of the gospels. It’s the central theme of the sermon of the mountain.

Matthew 5:38–39 (KJV)

“Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.”

Matthew 5:43–44 (KJV)

“Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.”

Luke 9:54–56 (King James Version)

“And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?
But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.
For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.”

Matthew 5:40 (KJV)

“And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.”

Matthew 5:41 (KJV)

“And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.”

Matthew 5:5 (KJV)

“Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.”

Matthew 5:9 (KJV)

“Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.”

Matthew 26:52–54 (KJV)


“Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.
Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?
But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?”

KJV. Yikes.

Anyway, this quote is I think quite clearly about something completely different. Meaning is nothing other than text plus interpretation. The interpretation you seem to be implying - though I can't know for sure since you have not bothered to state it - would be a rather... personal one, let's call it.

 

[SeekerPS]

KJV. Yikes.

Anyway, this quote is I think quite clearly about something completely different. Meaning is nothing other than text plus interpretation. The interpretation you seem to be implying - though I can't know for sure since you have not bothered to state it - would be a rather... personal one, let's call it.

Jesus refuses armed resistance even when his own freedom and life are at stake. He does not tell Peter to fight more carefully or to use violence only as a last resort.

Jesus explicitly identifies a means by which he could resist his captors and then refuses to use it.

Jesus calls his followers to reject violence even when they have a compelling reason to defend themselves. Therefore, the argument of condoning violence on self defense is moot. The same gospels prove that even in self defense, you should not retaliate with violence, and that it’s preferred to give those who oppress you what they want, or just let them end your life, instead of answering with more violence.

 

[Nembra]

Jesus refuses armed resistance even when his own freedom and life are at stake. He does not tell Peter to fight more carefully or to use violence only as a last resort.

Jesus explicitly identifies a means by which he could resist his captors and then refuses to use it.

Jesus calls his followers to reject violence even when they have a compelling reason to defend themselves. Therefore, the argument of condoning violence on self defense is moot.

The fact that Jesus made certain choices in certain situations, or even advised them in certain contexts, does not mean he was setting them as a moral standard applicable outside of those situations and contexts. This is the counterargument. Also the following is irrelevant, we are not speaking about retaliation at all.

The same gospels prove that even in self defense, you should not retaliate with violence, and that it’s preferred to give those who oppress you what they want, or just let them end your life, instead of answering with more violence.

Now the positive line is of course that there are things unworthy of defending with violence and things very much worthy of that.

 

[Ohana]

Yahweh and his entourage would be more likely to aid/protect me.

Calling it specifically this makes me laugh for some reason. The image of it being Iike in West Side Story and this "entourage" snaps menacingly at someone just makes me laugh. I'm going to take this question more seriously just thought to add this in since the mental image that came to my mind was kind of funny to me.

(Disclaimer im a novice when it comes to practical magic so please excuse my naivety)

For the most part I operate under a buddhist cosmology where pagan gods and abrahamic entities are devas/spirits trapped in samsara with us with varying degrees of power according to their qualities and liberation status (Zeus for example although powerful within samsara would be an entity consumed with poisonous samsaric influence because of his thirst for power, hedonism, and large ego). These kinds of entities i use for magical workings because buddhist ones are more interested in strictly helping me reach liberation not provide me magical powers or cursing my enemies so this is why I find samsaric entities useful.

Pagan gods i invoke mostly for right hand path workings. Granting me or others wisdom, good luck, blessings in magical workings, harmony, good health, defense from low level spirits etc. But ive also been wanting to incorporate more offensive practices to my arsenal for drastic measures, which infernals/demons would be perfect for or even gleeful to do. Only thing stopping me is the blowback that could happen from working with these entities (obviously some karmic retribution is to be expected and unavoidable, but id rather not have a demon on my ass on top of that). And the pagan gods from what i know aren't really known for their battles against demonic spirits the same way abrahamic entities are.

So to help with this i was thinking about beseeching the infernal's arch-nemesis, Yahweh, Christ, the Angels and the Saints. My question is would this be a good or beneficial plan? My logic tells me that receiving communion regularly or baptism would help me boost my reputation with Yahweh and his entourage would be more likely to aid/protect me. The only issue with this is that from what i know Yahweh is insanely jealous, and i am an idol worshipper who does not believe him to be the only god or the ultimate ground for truth like i do with the buddhist dharmakaya or neoplatonic One. So it might not even be worth it in the end.

(Sorry if this this was confusing, alot of my worldview comes from my own perennialist ponderings rather than more established traditions, im more than happy to learn and here your thoughts on this.)

Like others have pointed out I don't think this is the best idea. I might be completly off base here with this example due to limited understanding and expierence but an image of going to an writers or people in the arts and waving around quadratic formulas to them do your bidding came to mind.

That example might be accurate but it might illustrate that a more everyday way to do this is just go to people in the arts, writing, and music and just ask them for help. Sure there may be some nefarious people in the humanities but just basic discernment and protections and understandings of the landscape of humanities might help more than getting a bunch of math papers around to scare the humanities people. I know some peopIe in the humanities admit to being scared of math but it might not work for all of them.

Extending this long winded metaphor to the situation maybe just practice discenrment and basic protections that you yourself already do when you interact with other entites assuming you do which I do since you seem to have expierence already. Then, knowing who, what, why, and the how to the entities your speaking to and their wider mythologies to better fully grasp/understand them could help better than employing what seem to be the opposites to do it for you. Especially since some of the infernaI entities your interacting with that might not work on them.

 

[Sabbatius]

My question is would this be a good or beneficial plan? My logic tells me that receiving communion regularly or baptism would help me boost my reputation with Yahweh and his entourage would be more likely to aid/protect me. The only issue with this is that from what i know Yahweh is insanely jealous, and i am an idol worshipper who does not believe him to be the only god or the ultimate ground for truth like i do with the buddhist dharmakaya or neoplatonic One.

Depends on if you are following a specific text or tradition. There are several textual variances on Goetia which encourages one to maintain a religious practice, which is implied to be Roman Catholicism. Other texts insist on an ascetic practice though not exactly pointing at Roman Catholicism as Paracelsus imitators were Reformist and Lutheran-influenced. More Goetia works which were imitated in Greece has both the influence of Orthodox Christian-themed devotions as well as Islamic-themed methods.

The honest answer is no, but if you are a purist and methodical for retentive necessity, then yes. I rarely used sigils or even a circle. my ritual implements have been a bonfire, drum, bone knife, a cowboy hat, black jeans, boots and my eagle feather. Personally make do with you and not from an era where they used leeches to cure dyspepsia.

 

[SeekerPS]

Calling it specifically this makes me laugh for some reason. The image of it being Iike in West Side Story and this "entourage" snaps menacingly at someone just makes me laugh. I'm going to take this question more seriously just thought to add this in since the mental image that came to my mind was kind of funny to me.


Like others have pointed out I don't think this is the best idea. I might be completly off base here with this example due to limited understanding and expierence but an image of going to an writers or people in the arts and waving around quadratic formulas to them do your bidding came to mind.

That example might be accurate but it might illustrate that a more everyday way to do this is just go to people in the arts, writing, and music and just ask them for help. Sure there may be some nefarious people in the humanities but just basic discernment and protections and understandings of the landscape of humanities might help more than getting a bunch of math papers around to scare the humanities people. I know some peopIe in the humanities admit to being scared of math but it might not work for all of them.

Extending this long winded metaphor to the situation maybe just practice discenrment and basic protections that you yourself already do when you interact with other entites assuming you do which I do since you seem to have expierence already. Then, knowing who, what, why, and the how to the entities your speaking to and their wider mythologies to better fully grasp/understand them could help better than employing what seem to be the opposites to do it for you. Especially since some of the infernaI entities your interacting with that might not work on them.

I don’t understand your metaphor about artist and quadratic formulas come. What are you trying to explain with that?

You say that one should study the mythology before practicing, and for some reason you describe finding it funny to imagine YHWH going off to threaten the spirits. However, the mythology of the grimoires is based specifically on that—that's where the conjurations come from, and many of the demons cataloged in the grimoires were Canaanite deities who lost out to the cult of YHWH or appear directly in the Torah: Baal/Bael, Astarte, Beelzebub, Moloch, Ha-Satan, Asmodai.


A better metaphor would simply be that they are workers, and you're going to report them to their boss if they don't obey you. In any case, it's really not clear to me what point you're trying to make.

 

[FireBorn]

It seems the OPs own framework corners them into this small room where they either have to go appease this Yahweh god forever, or take their chances with demons.

I framed it this way because it is the practitioners framework that matters. Think about it, how is it Chaos magick works, yet Solomonic magick and witchcraft works as well? 3 distinct frameworks of magick and they all work. Plenty of practitioners will attest to that.

I personally dont have anything to do with anything Abrahamic whatsoever. I do work with Goetic demons, but not from a Solomonic lens at all. I can attest that the Abrahamic is not required for magick, nor work with demons.

If you think demons are evil, then they are for you. If you think Yahweh is the most powerful Deity, then he is. If you think you need to join a religion or church, or hell even a cult for this to work, then you are right (I hear they give out cool robes and haircuts in certain cults ).

You get to choose your framework, or you can default to the framework you were given by family and society. Choose well.

 

[Aeternus]

(Disclaimer im a novice when it comes to practical magic so please excuse my naivety)

For the most part I operate under a buddhist cosmology where pagan gods and abrahamic entities are devas/spirits trapped in samsara with us with varying degrees of power according to their qualities and liberation status (Zeus for example although powerful within samsara would be an entity consumed with poisonous samsaric influence because of his thirst for power, hedonism, and large ego). These kinds of entities i use for magical workings because buddhist ones are more interested in strictly helping me reach liberation not provide me magical powers or cursing my enemies so this is why I find samsaric entities useful.

Pagan gods i invoke mostly for right hand path workings. Granting me or others wisdom, good luck, blessings in magical workings, harmony, good health, defense from low level spirits etc. But ive also been wanting to incorporate more offensive practices to my arsenal for drastic measures, which infernals/demons would be perfect for or even gleeful to do. Only thing stopping me is the blowback that could happen from working with these entities (obviously some karmic retribution is to be expected and unavoidable, but id rather not have a demon on my ass on top of that). And the pagan gods from what i know aren't really known for their battles against demonic spirits the same way abrahamic entities are.

So to help with this i was thinking about beseeching the infernal's arch-nemesis, Yahweh, Christ, the Angels and the Saints. My question is would this be a good or beneficial plan? My logic tells me that receiving communion regularly or baptism would help me boost my reputation with Yahweh and his entourage would be more likely to aid/protect me. The only issue with this is that from what i know Yahweh is insanely jealous, and i am an idol worshipper who does not believe him to be the only god or the ultimate ground for truth like i do with the buddhist dharmakaya or neoplatonic One. So it might not even be worth it in the end.

(Sorry if this this was confusing, alot of my worldview comes from my own perennialist ponderings rather than more established traditions, im more than happy to learn and here your thoughts on this.)

It's a great idea that you have at least a grasp of Deities, Angel as well as Demon work. But, before you embark on the route of joining the church (actually joining it, not saying like a casual televangelist that preaches about Jesus or verses all the day), that there are some things to take into consideration.

As @MorganBlack has already stated, the Church has a reasonable condemning of Magic, as without serious grounding and connection to reality, as well as a safe mind (corresponding with the latter two principles of good occult practice), Magic can get you into some deep problematic BS that would be harder to repair depending on how big the screw-up is.

When it comes to really joining the Church, you would also have to understand that the view you hold now on your craft will seriously change. If one looks at the teachings of Mark, of Luke, or John the Evangelist (not John the Baptiser, he is a drastically different Saint), one will see that most of those teachings differ and regardless of the power of interpretation / biblical exegesis, there will still be an opposite reality of what you would expect.

If you want to keep your magical practice and use spiritual protection against low-level or Chtonic deities / Demons, then I suggest you align with Jesus on a spiritual level, like reading Psalm 51 (KJV) / Psalm 50 (Septuagint) all the day, Psalm 142 (Septuagint) and the Psalm 147 (Septuagint), build a personal practice for praying to Jesus Christ. Connect with Him by studying the symbols associated with Him like the Chi Ro, the "IC XC NI KA" inscription that relates to the epithet attributed to Jesus as "Jesus Christ the Conqueror", the symbol of the Lamb.

One other important thing that you may want to study in depth is what point of view related to Jesus resonates through your soul. Is it the view that equates him with YHWH? Is it the Christo-centric view of Jesus being the Logos incarnated, the Holy Trinity as being one person? Those are some of the "beginner" questions I would ask myself if I were in your place.

As for God, God Himself... there are let's say it kindly: "thousands upon thousands of views on Him" and depending on the religious practice you wish to adhere to, you will find that some religions (Islam and some parts of Judaism come to mind), totally forbid the making / representing God (no warm-hearted Grandfather image when thinking about Him, but rather the Essence of Pure Light). Going down this list of views on God, Gnosticism say something about the Monad / The Source. Kabbalah has the notion of Kether / Crown and so on and so forth.

 

[MorganBlack]

Thank you for the callout, Aeternus! Good conversation!

I am perhaps the absolute worst ambassador for Holy Mother Church you could possibly drag to the podium. I sit comfortably in the weird, unscripted margins as an accidental Marian mystic - a stance the bureaucracy respects and tolerates with polite distance, - but knows full well it operates entirely outside its canon law and management.

To say the Church is right to condemn "magic" yes, but needs extras critical nuance and definition to avoid falling into an epistemic and sociopolitical traps.

Almost nothing circulating on WF falls under the traditional label of "magic" that bears any resemblance to what the classical, grimoiric, or traditional worlds actually understood by the term. Somewhere around 95% of what passes for "magic" here is mysticism with a jazzed up book cover. It is New Thought, late-stage Natural Philosophy, light-touch animism, or just repurposed popular science. All good, but it's nothing anyone get worried about except for hysterical Evangelicals and a few right-wing Deliverance Catholics that adopted the rhetoric to scare people straight into the Church.

The framing here is the real issue. Contemporary pagan and atheist propaganda relies heavily on a flattened, post-Enlightenment definition of "magic." By shoving all spiritual tech, ritual act, and and imagination training into a single bucket called "magic," they are constructing a dialectical trap to try to force Christianity into an untenable position where it appears paranoid, reactionary, and anti-intellectual. "Look at the big bad Church, trembling in fear of our CHI POWER!" It’s a tired circus. I'm tired of it.

If we actually look at Catholic theology rather than internet discourse, the Church’s real issue with most modern manifestation practices isn’t that people are trying to use the Daoist energy circuit to set paper of fire, it’s a fundamental, anxiety-driven lack of trust in Creation. Replacing alignment with God - or the Universe, if your vocabulary requires the secular safety bumper - with constant, hyper-vigilant scheming and superstitious opportunism is fundamentally a spiritual disorder. It’s a flavor of scrupulosity. It's an inability to trust in Providence. Ironically, that nervous, controlling reflex and it;s justification is what modern people mistake for "magic."

What the Church - and indeed any sane, traditional moral framework - actually opposes is sorcery. And I say this as a sorcerer.

Sorcery can include work to bind, harm, dominate, or coerce the free will of another or even kill them. Every sensible moral and ethical tradition across the globe will tell you that messing with the Sublunar, tempestuous, chaotic lower spirits to force an outcome corrodes the architecture of your soul and disrupts the ecology of your community. See Hansen here on the anti-Structure of liminal spaces.

The overwhelming majority of modern WF "magic" is white as the driven snow. Even the self-styled "Left-Hand Path" posturing is mostly theatrical edgelordism, practicing a transcendentalism that the original Christian Desert Fathers would be proud of.

Only rarely rarely touches the tempestuous, perilous Sublunar space where actual sorcery and weird, spooky paranormal manifestations reside. And when it does, usually by mistake, they run away into 11-hour rear-guard retreat into Evangelical fundamentalism. "EX WITCH EMBRACES JESUS" stories. I know a few. I know one guy who scared himself so badly with sorcery he joined an Orthodox monastery.

 

[WonderFire]

No. Catholic Church is not just a metaphysical system, it is also a community. This community is against magick, so you'd be joining under false pretenses, which also invalidates your sacraments with that organization. Basically all Catholics who do magick have been baptized as children and got into magick later (and are trying to twist themselves into theological pretzels to try and find approval for what they're doing), so they're not different from other extremely sinful Catholics who did not openly renounce their affiliation. See @HoldAll posts in this thread for some details.

One alternative is to find someone offering a valid baptism without being part of established church, like some other denomination, or even those wandering bishops and priests. They're extremely theologically loose, and you're not bound by traditional theology- you'd be operating in similar way to a protestant or early Christian, like one of those Neo-Platonist magickians that would also join Christianity while maintaining extremely heterodox worldview.

 

[MorganBlack]

Da fuq? Let’s actually look at the mechanics of language here.

You’re making a pretty standard category error. You're taking a word "magic" that the Church used to refer strictly to a horrific, predatory violation, applying it to soft modern occult practices, and then getting offended when they treat you like a spiritual criminal.

Imagine walking up to an average person and announcing that you’re a "rapist" and that you practice "rape." When they back away in horror, I hope you wouldn't hold it against them for reacting to the label you've applied to yourself

I’m not saying the history between traditional magic and the Church isn't fraught - it’s a very complex, multi-century cage match. I’m saying the degree of semantic blindness required to use their worst word for spiritual violation and expect a polite nod is utterly insane. What they mean by "magic " is what I mean by the word sorcery. And sorcery is mean-hearted.

This is the exact same modern trap as the word "witch." Historically, that word meant nothing good - it meant maleficium, malicious harm, that;s it, period - not nature mystism - until L. Frank Baum (a Theosophist with deep esoteric ties) wrote The Wizard of Oz. "Are you a good witch or a bad witch?" Modern people imported a 20th-century pop-rebrand and expected ancient working definitions to go along with it, then act superior when they don't match the media expectations. It's silly.

When a modern "magic" energy worker uses the word - yeah, not the same - and look how much of what is done here is "energy" not demons nor daimons. Ya'll mean a mix of psychological archetypes, Chaos magic emotional symbols, shadow work, energy manipulation, New Age philosophy, and personal growth. It’s light and s soft, it’s basically wellness therapy culture with candles and a little edge. All good. I like some of it myself. But it is not sorcery. Never was, never will be.

When Rome uses the word "magic", they aren't talking about your chi-ball laser fingers or your edgy inner child. In the Catholic canonical framework, "magic" is a technical term for spiritual treason. It is defined - by design, for over fifteen hundred years - as an attempt to bypass divine authority, make pacts with predatory spirits, and commit spiritual assault against the rational order of the cosmos, and descend into what we moderns might call mental illness or madness. In their taxonomy, "magic" doesn't live in the same category as philosophy or meditation, or New Thought - it lives in the same moral bucket as rape, murder, but not for the reason modern magic think.

The only serious thing the Church actually has a fundamental issue with, depending on which flavor of Catholicism you're talking about, is consorting with "demons." And who does that here on this forum? And frankly, even the "demons" of the early modern grimoires are hardly the comic-book monsters of modern pop-exorcism. They were often understood within a complex, highly Christianized, celestial hierarchy that was less mythic literalist than most modern hot-takes.

Anyway, it’s a total translation failure. Trying to debate a 2,000-year-old legalistic empire using definitions picked up on the internet last week is absurd. They don't hate Chi-balls, or Jungian shadow work, or energy, or trees because they don't understand them.

In their eyes, "magic" is intrinsically tied to spiritual violence the exact same way a firearm is tied to physical violence. It is morally fraught by by the nature of what they are observing, a gun. Trying to convince a Catholic that magic is harmless self-care and self -actualization is like arguing that a Smith & Wesson .45 loaded with hollow points is actually just a misunderstood cuddly stuff unicorn toy that ought to be handed out to kids at Sunday school. It’s completely absurd.