[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.