Moderately More Catholic and "Abrahamist" Grimoire Evocation

[MorganBlack]

Temporarily De-Centering Greek Paganism and Agnosticism from Goetia

Making another thread to keep from going off topic from here:

Grimoires & PGM - looking for others

Grimoires & PGM - looking for others

I hinted at this in my intro, but I’ll be more explicit here. I’m looking to connect with magicians who work with spirits through the grimoires in a way that stays reasonably close to the textual sources. Most of my background has been in GD and Crowley influenced CM-style work, which was great...

wizardforums.com

I know the Greco-Egyptian revival is all the rage right now, thanks largely to Jake Stratton-Kent's excellent work, and it's absolutely valid. But it tends to dominate the conversation to the point where other equally historical approaches get drowned out.

This thread operates under a Chaos Magic framework to explore monotheistic mythic paradigms in grimoire practice. Specifically, we're re-examining and re-inviting the Catholic, Christian, Islamic, and Judaic threads that were historically central to the grimoire tradition afterthe conversions some historians suggest happened during the Byzantine Empire.

While Greek goetia thread is absolutely valid, and I have tremendous respect and adoration for Jake Stratton-Kent's scholarship, there's a case to be made that the contribution of Greek magical papyri to the medieval grimoire tradition may have been somewhat overstated in recent discourse. His PGM-Thelemic framework absolutely works - I've used it successfully myself - but it has contributed to an over-correction toward the "paganization" conversations and threads. This has unfortunately led to increased dismissiveness and hostility toward the monotheistic frameworks that were, if lately, foundational to most of the grimoire texts.

Why Chaos Magic as the Framework. We're using Chaos Magic principles here to maintain methodological flexibility and mutual respect. The paradigm-shifting approach of Chaos Magic allows us to work with Catholic, Islamic, Judaic, or Hermetic henothestic frameworks as functional magical paradigms without requiring literal theological commitment.

What This Thread Is NOT. I'm sorry I even have to say this. This is not the place to: Vent anti-religious sentiment. Relitigate historical grievances against the Church or organized religion. Express atheistic skepticism about theistic practice. Engage in the same tired critiques and propaganda that have been circulating for centuries. Claim the methods of the grims are outdated and pointless becasue your personal buddy Asmodeus told you so.

Also, iIf you find yourself unable to paradigm-shift into a monotheistic mythic framework without experiencing strong negative reactions, this may indicate unresolved religious trauma. That's completely valid and deserves compassionate attention - but here it means, in this particular thread, that this thread may not be the right fit for you right now. Therapy or trauma-specific spaces would be more appropriate venues for that work.


On-topic Discussion Topics

Catholic ritual structure in grimoire work
Exploring Catholic, Christian, Islamic and Jewish othodoxy as it relates to the grimoire tradition
The role of psalms, angelic hierarchies, and divine names
Islamic jinn magic and its relationship to Solomonic tradition
Judaic Kabbalah in grimoire contexts
Hermetic henothestic frameworks
Paradigm-shifting techniques for practitioners from non-monotheistic backgrounds
Practical experiences and results
Spiritualist appraches uch as New World sorcery seance techniques. See Julio Cesar's Ody Magister Officiorum for an example.

Post automatically merged: Yesterday at 8:39 PM

A couple to get the grimoire moderate monotheism ball rollin'.

Most people critique Catholicism without knowing what they are critiquing.

Here's Bishop Robert Barron, from Los Angeles, talking about 'God' as the 'Ground of Being', that makes all things luminous.

The Orthodox Catholic version of God is much closer to Neoplatonic conception of The One than the Mean-Cop-in-the-Sky God of other Christianities. This is the language of their internal mystical tradition.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Gitch Bottle's Alexander Eth was raised Catholic, and is supportive of this mythic framework.

Not Just Magicians: Catholic Exorcists Called On Demons, Too
What actually makes exorcisms effective? What are demons? What is the Catholic teaching on magic, grimoires and spirit summoning?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Angelkesfarl]

The Eastern Cosmic Model of Sorcery: Origins, Hierarchy, and Boundaries
We begin with a specific premise regarding Sorcery (Sihr) within Eastern and Islamic traditions: it possesses a definitive beginning and an end. It is a mundane science, not a Divine one, contrary to what some may claim.

Sorcery's Limits and Scope
Sorcery cannot secure you a place in Paradise, nor can it save you from Hell. For instance, can you perform a spell to make an Angel marry and love a mortal woman? No.

Therefore, Sorcery is a worldly science concerned with the material and the immediate realm beyond the material (the subtle realm), but it specifically concerns the Earth. All planetary constructs linked to sorcerous arts are contained within our solar system, and the expansion into astrological signs remains within the boundaries of the visible cosmos.

In the Eastern definition, Sorcery is defined as words and actions, assisted by objects, that result in an influence upon individuals or any other form of life.

The Dual Origin of Sorcery in Eastern Belief
Where does Sorcery originate according to the Eastern doctrine? It has only two sources:

The Teachings of the Shayateen (Devils/Demons).

The Angels of Sorcery: Harut and Marut.

In our academic and esoteric circles in the East, we entirely reject the narrative of the 'Fall of Angels.' We consider Angels to be creatures of Divine Light, created for worship, love, and absolute obedience to the Creator. They are, in reality, nameless shadows of God's Names and Attributes, serving His will faithfully.

The Role of Harut and Marut
These two Angels, Harut and Marut, are the Masters of Sorcery. They are assigned by the Creator to administer this power. All the power and influence of sorcery originate from them, supported by a vast network of subordinate Angels. Even Black Magic derives its operational power through them, as they are entrusted with authorizing the Creator’s permission for a spell to succeed or fail.

The Phenomenon of the 'Gods' (Al-Tawaghit)
Is there any other God besides the One Creator? In the East, the answer is definitively No.

So, what is the definition of "Gods" (Deities) in the Eastern (Arabic) esoteric science? They are Al-Tawaghit (Tyrants/Rebellious Ones). A Taghut is a rebellious individual, but their rebellion is not blind; it stems from their mastery of mechanisms granted to them by the Creator. They are exclusively from the Jinn—creatures of primordial Fire—who transformed from fire into a malleable, etheric state, possessing immense power (though limited before the Angels).

The Tawaghit are the masters of mythology. They create these legends through their followers among humans, devils, and other Jinn.

The Great War and the Cosmic Justification (Izn Al-Fitna)
Here lies the function of Harut and Marut: acting under a Divine Command called the Permission of Trial and Tribulation (Izn Al-Fitna). (The world of Sorcery is enticing, is it not?)

A simple clarification: God created all beings. Before Adam, the Jinn were created from the primordial, elemental Fire of the cosmos (elemental fire, solar fire, earthly fire, etc.). The Jinn existed before Adam, with powerful governments and kingdoms. When they reached the peak of their science and technology—mastering interdimensional travel faster than light by exploiting hidden gates and jump points—they began to believe they were Gods, given their longevity. Their kings declared themselves deities to be worshipped, and the less powerful claimed to be the sons of the divine, possessing divine attributes.

When they discovered and mastered Sorcery, they realized that while their nature was powerful, true magical power demanded a terrible price: submission to the system. This is the origin of all the powerful binding, invoking, banishing, and compelling words found in all Grimoires.

However, when the Jinn kingdoms plunged into tyranny, disobeying the Divine commands, the supposed "gods" began to clash for supremacy. At this point, the armies of the Lord (the Angels) descended. They annihilated all forms of power created by the Jinn, shattered their primary continent (Atlantis), destroyed all their works, and exiled the survivors into another dimension. They are now chained in the Aetheric realm, unable to manifest without specific, prior permission.

A Call for Deeper Understanding
This framework offers a complete, unified cosmology—a unique view of magic, Jinn, and the true nature of the 'Gods' from a master's perspective. This is just the opening premise. Through further discussion and analysis, we will unveil more profound facets of this Eastern wisdom to illuminate the paths of Western practitioners.

 

[Faria]

I know the Greco-Egyptian revival is all the rage right now, thanks largely to Jake Stratton-Kent's excellent work, and it's absolutely valid. But it tends to dominate the conversation to the point where other equally historical approaches get drowned out.

I don't think it has so much to do with people attaching themselves to a more-informed version of spirit traditions. Instead I can attribute the change in discourse to two primary items:

1. Queer Stuff.
JSK's thesis on grimoires roughly boils down to "Medieval Ceremonial Magic is Best Represented By Pagan Cross-Dressing." He made marginalized people feel comfortable in a space that had traditionally rejected them, and they loved him for it. The number of people who own his books is small, the number who have read all 1800 pages of it is much smaller, therefore the love people have for his work is more a love of his personality than his professional theses. If he was a straight well-to-do Christian he probably would have been completely ignored.

2. Poor People Stuff.
Grimoires are all about material success. Every single one, on just about every single page, has some option to make your life visibly better. Not emotionally better, not psychologically better, or better in some metaphysical attainment sense; but treasure, fame, achievement in a recognizable way. Rather than these, JSK embodied a punk aesthetic, and encouraged people to join him in that lifestyle rather than exceed their limitations. People love to be told that they have friends, and nobody likes to be forcibly shoved toward glory, so JSK was a prophet for people who want to reject the norms and aspirations of the majority.

He died broke and being treated like a prisoner, suffering from what was likely a stroke brought on by his own absurd faith in Big Pharma and their Covid vax, and his legacy is thousands of pages that his most devoted followers will probably never read. It doesn't make a strong case for the effectiveness of his interpretation of the subject.

While Greek goetia thread is absolutely valid, and I have tremendous respect and adoration for Jake Stratton-Kent's scholarship, there's a case to be made that the contribution of Greek magical papyri to the medieval grimoire tradition may have been somewhat overstated in recent discourse.

There are so many steps between the PGM and the KOS that it doesn't really make sense to say that they are equivalent in any sense. It's like comparing elephants and hyraxes, who have common ancestors millions of years ago.

The main difference between this modern concept of evocation and the actual grimoire practice is the God stuff. If a person really can't stand that, and wants to be rid of it, the thing to do is to rebuild the entire system. Just keeping all the spooky parts and kicking out the God parts strikes me as superstition. The historical equivalency discussion exists because people want less Jesus, more than they want better Goetia.

Again, this comes down to marginalized people demanding access to the secrets of the ruling class. People who are broke, lonely, legitimately struggling, see the grimoire path as a way to subvert their ill fortunes that are blocked along every other road to success. They want to see the mainstream as fundamentally corrupt, racist, bigoted, colonizing, etc, and so they reject anything that they associate with it, like Bible talk. They want what grimoires offer, they just don't want to ask God for it.

 

[MorganBlack]

I find much of value in JSK's writing even if I'm not very "pagan" myself. I've used his framework sucessfully, but again I don't take paganism literally, but look for the big, timeless mythic themes. But I get what you're saying.

1990 to 2014, there were only a handful of us involved in this. I really expected all this to be something I did on my own, talking occasionally with some other Gen-Xers. I really did not expect to have the magic and pagan industrial complex (somehow conflating the two 100%) arise around it. But the the whole "demons are pagan gods" idea, while fine up to a point as interpretive framework, may be limited in some cases.

And we act like we know exactly what pagan gods are. We don't, but eveyone on Witch-Tok will tell you down to 10 micometers exactly what they are. As if the word maps 1:1 with reality.

A measured, cautionary approach to the Underworld, minding formal protoclols , is all right there in JSK's unearthing of pre-Homeric Greek Chthonic religion. Even the easlier Greek Chthonic religions they had concepts of Original Sin, judgement, atonement, seeking forgiveness, and all the punishment of wrongdoing - almost any Christian would recognize them, and that modern pagans are trying so hard to get away from.

People just skip right over the Erinyes, Tartarus, the nature of Hades and Persephone , and retcon back in some version of cuddly, Victorian pastoral "pagan" poetry. With the "WitchTok-ization" of Solomonic magic and Goetia, and it all got interpreted through a very narrow modern pagan lens.

I have met the daimons. .It sounds like you have too. They are wonderful, occasionally terrifying, but fucking weird. Even some people in the Luciferian framework, probably having met some of their tempestuous manifestations are begining to address this. Grey can't help himself but to take another dig at Christianity, but whatever.

"To valorise the demonic without exercising discrimination is to clutch the asp
to one’s breast. It is foolish to accept, unconsciously or out of ignorance, the
levelling terms of Christianity. Inversion is a reactive simplification which often
leads to the removal of all the safeguards in ritual procedure, leaving the
magician vunerable to parasites, obsession, delusions and spiritual error.
However, when we read the descriptions of spirits in the grimoires, we find that
a nuanced world is often preserved, beyond the simple categories of good and
evil. It does not mean that the demons are all demoted pagan gods whom we can
placate with offerings, but neither are they one dimensional devils."

Lucifer: Praxis
by Peter Grey

 

[Magus314]

My honest take is that JSK’s material feels a bit derivative and overly simplified (Im not a fan, there is far more scholarly work out there). There isn’t a straight, unbroken line from late antiquity to the later grimoire tradition. The PGM is fascinating precisely because of its complexity. You can see ritual structures in some of the papyri that echo forms later found in the grimoires, but treating the PGM as a direct predecessor, or worse, using it as a kind of generic “pagan” overlay for grimoire work, misses the point entirely.

For one thing, the PGM contains as much monotheistic and Semitic material as it does polytheistic material. It’s a deeply syncretic corpus, not a clean expression of “pagan magic,” and trying to flatten it into that framework does violence to what it actually is. Its value lies in that messiness, in its transitional character, and in the way it reflects practitioners working in a world where religious categories were already collapsing into one another.

Just as importantly, the PGM stands on its own. Individual spells can be worked as complete operations without filtering them through a medieval or Renaissance lens. Approaching it primarily as raw material to be retrofitted into later systems risks obscuring what makes it powerful and instructive in its own right.

Post automatically merged: 53 minutes ago

don't think it has so much to do with people attaching themselves to a more-informed version of spirit traditions. Instead I can attribute the change in discourse to two primary items:

1. Queer Stuff.
JSK's thesis on grimoires roughly boils down to "Medieval Ceremonial Magic is Best Represented By Pagan Cross-Dressing." He made marginalized people feel comfortable in a space that had traditionally rejected them, and they loved him for it. The number of people who own his books is small, the number who have read all 1800 pages of it is much smaller, therefore the love people have for his work is more a love of his personality than his professional theses. If he was a straight well-to-do Christian he probably would have been completely ignored.

2. Poor People Stuff.
Grimoires are all about material success. Every single one, on just about every single page, has some option to make your life visibly better. Not emotionally better, not psychologically better, or better in some metaphysical attainment sense; but treasure, fame, achievement in a recognizable way. Rather than these, JSK embodied a punk aesthetic, and encouraged people to join him in that lifestyle rather than exceed their limitations. People love to be told that they have friends, and nobody likes to be forcibly shoved toward glory, so JSK was a prophet for people who want to reject the norms and aspirations of the majority.

He died broke and being treated like a prisoner, suffering from what was likely a stroke brought on by his own absurd faith in Big Pharma and their Covid vax, and his legacy is thousands of pages that his most devoted followers will probably never read. It doesn't make a strong case for the effectiveness of his interpretation of the subject.

Fully agree with those points. I became pretty disillusioned with him and his material over the years. It started to feel like it was more about cultivating a particular aesthetic than about actually doing the work and putting in the practice.

I was around on Facebook back when he, Leitch, and a few others started feeling real pressure from practitioners who were calling them out. Once that happened, the tone shifted fast. It wasn’t a thoughtful exchange or a course correction, it got defensive and messy, and a lot of the cracks became very obvious. Watching that unfold was one of the moments that pushed me to step back and be much more skeptical of polished narratives and public-facing authority in this space.

 

[MorganBlack]

It has been 16 years since Jake's True Grimoire. It was inevitable we'd get more research that would shed new light on the tradition. See Dr. Gal Sofer's work, which I'm still reading. It is very dry, but it's mitigating or diluting right now some of the, uh, more hardline and fundamentalist Greek pagan threads, and causing some measure of soul searching. Not me, I have no soul. Kidding, kidding.

Book – PDF - Dr. Gal Sofer - Solomonic Magic - Methodology, Texts, and Histories (2025)

This recent academic book is causing some hand-wringing, but it need not. https://mega.nz/file/Yn41kRwa#xhgv2b23zMiCnrrhgIc6GvCP8GYqQfk9YwToMKoOIOg Dr. Sofer’s ‘Solomonic Magic’ tome - https://brill.com/display/title/64906 Dr. Sofer’s Academia page: - https://bgu.academia.edu/GalSofer Why...

wizardforums.com

Jake and Peter Grey both ground their ritual frameworks in the PGM ritual tech. Jake makes the Headless Rite core to his system, and interprets Heart Girt with a Serpent as Set. I interpret him (it?) as the Demiurge and as a specific manifestation of godhead in a very Jewish and Platonic sense. See the late historian Russell Gmirkin for more :

Plato's Timaeus and the Biblical Creation Accounts:
Cosmic Monotheism and Terrestrial Polytheism in the Primordial History
Routledge, 2022

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Post automatically merged: 6 minutes ago

Speaking to the "gayness."

Was it really that bad online? Serious question. I was busy and had no time to pay attention.

A little background. Jake, Stratton-Kent, Leitch. Rufus Opus, and most of us Gen-Xers were or are in the OTO, and the Thelemic 'Law of Liberty' is just part of the legacy - or baggage - of 20th century magical culture.

I am sympathetic to it, but feel it should be left as a side note. It's a leftover from the 1960's Boomer-to-Millennials counterculture: drugs, polyamory, free love, do whatever, was part of the milieu in which we were all I were coming up. I personally don't care because politics is the death of magic and enchantment, and I have no dog in those races.

Similarly, I have no issue hanging out with normie cradle Catholics, who mostly dislike a bunch of things around sexuality that modern magicians and pagans think are cool. Catholics also hate - it's considered a sin - when workers are not paid a decent wage for their labor and usury, but many pagans I know are fine with labor exploitation. So who gets to have the moral high ground? I have no idea. I really don't care as long as people are cool with each other.

 

[Magus314]

Jake and Peter Grey both ground their ritual frameworks in the PGM ritual tech. Jake makes the Headless Rite core to his system, and interprets Heart Girt with a Serpent as Set. I interpret him (it?) as the Demiurge and as a specific manifestation of godhead in a very Jewish and Platonic sense. See the late historian Russell Gmirkin for more :

My issue is really with that whole idea of PGM “ritual tech.” The phrase feels like it’s lifted straight out of the Gordon White playbook, that plug-and-play, choose-your-own-adventure approach to magic. I don’t put much faith in him or Jake, and to a lesser extent Peter Grey either. I’ve read their material, all of it, but I just don’t believe they’ve actually practiced this work in any sustained or serious way.

This isn’t meant as an attack on you. I’m just very reactive to that terminology because it trivializes tradition. It makes it sound like we’re dealing with a Lego box of techniques that can be snapped together arbitrarily and, voilà, you’re a magician. That framing ignores transmission, context, discipline, and the fact that these systems were embedded in very specific religious and cosmological worlds.

As for your experience with PGM V.96–172 invoking something more demiurgic, I largely agree. There are drawings of the Akephalos (the “headless spirit”) elsewhere in the PGM that do explicitly link it, via divine names, to Set, specifically the syncretic Typhon-Set. But interestingly, the papyri itself doesn’t work very hard to distinguish between a Platonic Demiurge and Typhon-Set. The ambiguity seems deliberate, or at least unproblematic to the practitioner.

Food for thought, I suppose. Especially when you widen the lens and remember there’s also a whole tradition of Catholic headless saints.

 

[MorganBlack]

No worries. "Ritual technology" long precedes Gordon and was in use in the OTO in the early 1990's.

It was not meant to trivialize, but speaks how we handful of magicians thought of it. I still do. Yes it can be used shallowly if we seek bland equivalences in cultures but also speaks to the very syncratism in the PGM itself.