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

[FireBorn]

consorting with "demons." And who does that here on this forum?

I do. Every. Single. Day. And its the jam. This is the LHP subforum. OP asked about working with demons. The Catholic/religious preaching should go right over into the Religion subforum.

 

[MorganBlack]

Oh dammit. You are right. Wrong place to go into it.

Well, you do. And me as well. And a handful of others.

But I was not preaching, just qualifying what the Church means by he word "magic" is not at all what 95% of what is called magic by most people here. Sorcery mostly is. Malefica 100% is. It's a common misconception. Nobody really cares about your chi-balls, Bardonian pore breathing exercises, or imagining what you want. Carry on, good folks.

 

[Ohana]

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

I was just trying to create a visualization of what I think using YHWH as a binding force against infernaI entities reaIIy entails to the OP. I don't think it wouId work on aII of them and I personally think it makes more sense to understand the entity and using discernemnt and basic protections that would work for any entity rather than getting a middle enitity? Involved that might not even work a 100 percent of the time.

I used math vs humanities metaphor to illustrate that since if someone wants heIp from someone in the humanities it makes more sense to just do research on what the person you want help from does beforehand, ask directly, but make sure that someone asking isn't too trusting of them and has basic discernement.

It seems like more leg work to go to a different department that the person asking isn't even affiliated with yet to get help. Especially if not everyone will listen to the entity in the middle facilitating this and some might even become annoyed at this damaging future prospects.

Math vs Humanities seems also like a good pick because math despite not being affiliated with humanities is generaIIy seen as to have more sway and power and this is using power to institute change on an entity using another entity with not as much affiliation.

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.

No I find it funny to caII it an entourage. I should have specified more and probably not have chosen West Side Story to compare it too. The calling it an entourage is funny to me because entourage does not make me think of intimidating gang. Its too fancy of a word. It makes me more think of a MusicaI group or a group of theater peopIe going around performing which is in stark contrast to the image of intimidating entity thus the hilarity.

Canaanite deities who lost out to the cult of YHWH or appear directly in the Torah: Baal/Bael, Astarte, Beelzebub, Moloch, Ha-Satan, Asmodai.

Most of these yeah but MoIoch is contended entity to even reaIIy existing archeologically speaking and Ha-Satan literally just means adversary and in a OT context can sometimes be used to describe a position in the heirarchy not attributed to one single entity. Only in christianiazation did it change to the figure of actuaI adversary that was cast out and not there anymore and in that context I'm pretty sure supposed to leave out the Ha.

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.

In this metaphor I would add on that your reporting them to their ex-boss if they reaIIy did leave. They wouIdn't be working there anymore in this metaphor.

The point I was trying to make is what I already described above in my opinion I think thats its too much effort to do all that and make sure you just go directIy to there and ask whiIe using basic discernement and protection.

 

[Robert Ramsay]

Kind of a funny image, an angry Jewish woman screaming at the Devil to make him release souls from eternal damnation.

Normally a role for the mother-in-law

 

[Ohana]

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.

With all this about magic though I think this probably is what was said on paper by the church due to peopIe being peopIe I wouId aIso Iike to point out how the persecution of magic practioners was tied to discrimination of peopIe that were seen as sub-human in the eyes of society like the disabled, older unwed women, and racism.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Just look at this case and this is from a very very brief not extensive research into the topic. I know you are knowledgeable about this topic and want to acknowledge that but I also want to provide this context as weII to the history of persecuting magic practioners and some didn't even engage in this spirtuaI violence like that and were instead just part of a group of peopIe already deemed untrustworthy by the greater society at Iarge and falsely accused of it.

I also want to mention that even though some of these spirtuaI may in fact be vioIent not just to the church but just in generaI the church responded back with vioIence to that in some eras and I do not think was justified. This response back I think shouId aIso be brought up so as to not ignore and brush under the rug what these peopIe went through. This explanation of this history feeIs Ike a rose colored view of it so I just wanted to add some nuance to the points brought up.

 

[Beyond Everything]

But I was not preaching, just qualifying what the Church means by he word "magic" is not at all what 95% of what is called magic by most people here. Sorcery mostly is. Malefica 100% is. It's a common misconception. Nobody really cares about your chi-balls, Bardonian pore breathing exercises, or imagining what you want. Carry on, good folks.

​

That's simply not true.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

2116 Consulting horoscopes, astrology, palm reading, interpretation of omens and lots, the phenomena of clairvoyance, and recourse to mediums all conceal a desire for power over time, history, and, in the last analysis, other human beings, as well as a wish to conciliate hidden powers. They contradict the honor, respect, and loving fear that we owe to God alone.

2117 All practices of magic or sorcery, by which one attempts to tame occult powers, so as to place them at one's service and have a supernatural power over others -- even if this were for the sake of restoring their health -- are gravely contrary to the virtue of religion.... Wearing charms is also reprehensible.
------------

The church condemning chi balls-

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

-----------

And there's the little matter of the church banning and executing people for being involved in esoteric practices (not 'demonic sorcery') over the centuries.

 

[Nembra]

​

That's simply not true.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

2116 Consulting horoscopes, astrology, palm reading, interpretation of omens and lots, the phenomena of clairvoyance, and recourse to mediums all conceal a desire for power over time, history, and, in the last analysis, other human beings, as well as a wish to conciliate hidden powers. They contradict the honor, respect, and loving fear that we owe to God alone.

2117 All practices of magic or sorcery, by which one attempts to tame occult powers, so as to place them at one's service and have a supernatural power over others -- even if this were for the sake of restoring their health -- are gravely contrary to the virtue of religion.... Wearing charms is also reprehensible.
------------

The church condemning chi balls-

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

-----------

And there's the little matter of the church banning and executing people for being involved in esoteric practices (not 'demonic sorcery') over the centuries.

CCC is unfortunately of more than dubious theological - and even logical - consistency, and certainly doesn't reflect how Catholicism is being practiced across the world. The Church is not executing anyone currently, by the way, and this conversation is not about its historical forms.

 

[Beyond Everything]

CCC is unfortunately of more than dubious theological - and even logical - consistency, and certainly doesn't reflect how Catholicism is being practiced across the world. The Church is not executing anyone currently, by the way, and this conversation is not about its historical forms.

blah it's Official church doctrine. Hell, catholics are even still banned from becoming something as innocuous as a freemason lol

I'd think an intellectually/spiritually curious person would wonder what sort of energies could create such esoteric persecutions for centuries.

People have to engage in harmful dissonance (and that isn't just cognitive) to operate esoterically within the repressive folds of the church.

And to relate this to the original question- if you want cognitive and energetic dissonance, and you swallow dogmas as realities, and think all these discarnate beings are comic book characters and not egregores, then sure, tie yourself in knots and become a catholic. On the other hand if you want true protection and authority, tap your own inner powers of the Self and develop your subtle body.

 

[Nembra]

blah it's Official church doctrine. Hell, catholics are even still banned from becoming something as innocuous as a freemason lol

It's not exactly banned and not exactly inocuous. Freemasonry contains a system of belief that's contradictory with Catholicism, so if you're a freemason you ipso facto are not a Catholic. Any "bans" church officials might declare are redundant.

I'd think an intellectually/spiritually curious person would wonder what sort of energies could create such esoteric persecutions for centuries.

Both the degree to which those "centuries of persecution" were carried out by representatives of the actual Church and the agreement of those eventualities with the actual religion are being grotesquely overstated.

People have to engage in harmful dissonance (and that isn't just cognitive) to operate esoterically within the repressive folds of the church.

That is an opinion you are committing remarkable effort to prove uninformed.

 

[Beyond Everything]

Both the degree to which those "centuries of persecution" were carried out by representatives of the actual Church and the agreement of those eventualities with the actual religion are being grotesquely overstated.

This is just bullshit. The church was enthusiastically pointing out heretics to civil authorities. This went on for centuries, and commenced when the church obtained political power. And yes, right from that moment the 'represenatives of the actual Church' were hellbent on eliminating other practices.

And esoterically speaking, it is outlandishly comical to say catholicism has nothing to do with the actions of catholics over all that time. It's the same fucking energies. lol If someone has psychic discernment, they can 'see' it (oh gee, why are they so opposed to clairvoyance?).

 

[MorganBlack]

I am curious what "magic" people do in Anglophone spaces that they think the Church hates. And why do you care?

Those who say there is no such thing as Catholicism mysticism. That's ridiculous.

You can see the entire system, if you can step back a sec from pop-mysticism, expressed in what Crowley took from Catholic saint and mystic iSt. John of the Cross, and in what has come to be called the "Oath of the Abyss: "I will interpret every phenomenon as a particular dealing of God with my soul."

Gareth Knight:
"The initiation undergone by St. John of the Cross was a very high one, and one which Crowley fancied himself to have taken... initiation is not merely a question of knowing the externals of symbolism, it is a state of being."

I recommend reading that several times.

Anyway, the full eleven clauses of the Oath of the Magister Templi (Master of the Temple) has come to be called the Oath of the Abyss, but that is technically a shorthand, not the full oath, which you can read here:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

St. John of the Cross's entire program, especially in The Ascent of Mount Carmel, is a mystical practice to treat every attachment to particular experiences - even supernatural ones - must be renounced so the soul can enter the "abyss of faith" where "all else is absorbed".

So you can see that desperate grasping after glittery fortune-tellers on TickTok is gravely discouraged and counter to the method.

The Catholic contemplative tradition and the Thelemic A.A . system both demand the one seeking "adepthood" (mind the language barrier, it trips up almost everyone, in both directions. ) seeks the same thing, which is total surrender of the desperate need for particular signs, particular consolations, particular reassurances. St. John of the Cross calls it the Dark Night. Crowley later calls it the Oath of the Abyss. The difference is that John says let everything be stripped away until only God remains, while the occultists all says... well fuck in I know, it a fucking mess out there. Just go read the original source material and try it out.

You can hate Catholicism, fine, knock yourself out, but that's also something you must let go eventually , if you say you have" Crossed the Abyss " as everyone and their dog claims these days.

 

[Nembra]

This is just bullshit. The church was enthusiastically pointing out heretics to civil authorities. This went on for centuries, and commenced when the church obtained political power. And yes, right from that moment the 'represenatives of the actual Church' were hellbent on eliminating other practices.

Yeah, sounds like some new atheism propaganda. Baseless is one thing, but it's also boring and derivative. I feel like I already asked at another occasion, doesn't it bother you that you get so emotional over such slopply, mainstream beliefs? Like, if you're going to be historically inaccurate and semantically confused then at least pick something with style.

There were many currents within Catholicism across the ages with varied degrees of power and alignment with the will of the Living Church. You have nowhere near enough expertise in the matter to form any declarative statement with "Church" as the noun that would risk accuracy.

And esoterically speaking, it is outlandishly comical to say catholicism has nothing to do with the actions of catholics over all that time. It's the same fucking energies. lol If someone has psychic discernment, they can 'see' it (oh gee, why are they so opposed to clairvoyance?).

I think you might find that intense prejudice creates massive blind spots in your spiritual senses. As well as in your sense of comedy.

 

[Beyond Everything]

St. John of the Cross's entire program, especially in The Ascent of Mount Carmel, is a mystical practice to treat every attachment to particular experiences - even supernatural ones - must be renounced so the soul can enter the "abyss of faith" where "all else is absorbed".

I remained, lost in oblivion;
My face I reclined on the Beloved.
All ceased and I abandoned myself,
Leaving my cares
forgotten among the lilies.

This is a vastly inferior, merely 'mystical' sort of attainment. True attainment is uniting with one's inner, hidden self. That is not an abandonment to the so-called 'loving' energies of an egregore (god), but actualization and the path to the development of a higher subtle body. It is most certainly not abandoning yourself, but becoming as much of your Self as possible. In technical terms, one still maintains the self-reflective consciousness through all states and conditions. Not a sublimated death wish.

Yeah, sounds like some new atheism propaganda. Baseless is one thing, but it's also boring and derivative.

Ok, you haven't really articulated a response. Just expressed your frustration with dawkins et al. I clearly demonstrated the official church position on such evilllll things as clairvoyance and wearing charms. And nefarious practices like reiki lol

Your 'true living church' is meaningless and empty. I prefer to look at what catholics/the church have actually done for centuries. That clues you in on a little thing called reality, as opposed to emotionally-held fantasies- which is what religion is. Your position is that millions of catholics, including all those popes, were not the living church and have nothing to do with real catholicism. Do you realize how daft that sounds?

 

[Darkat]

I do. Every. Single. Day. And its the jam. This is the LHP subforum. OP asked about working with demons. The Catholic/religious preaching should go right over into the Religion subforum.

Could not agree more Fireborn. Count me in as one who works with daemons every day as well. Nothing better!

 

[MorganBlack]

This is a vastly inferior, merely 'mystical' sort of attainment

Cool, I hope you write up your system some day. The more the merrier. Often fine points get lost through cracks, not matter how venerable the tradition. Like Crowley's "Oath of the Abyss " sometimes we need a new language just to see what was already there.

 

[Nembra]

Ok, you haven't really articulated a response. Just expressed your frustration with dawkins et al. I clearly demonstrated the official church position on such evilllll things as clairvoyance and wearing charms. And nefarious practices like reiki lol

No you have not, is my point. Neither was it the position of what you think the Church is nor is that thing the Church.

Your 'true living church' is meaningless and empty. I prefer to look at what catholics/the church have actually done for centuries. That clues you in on a little thing called reality, as opposed to emotionally-held fantasies- which is what religion is.

Do you, by the same metric also prefer to look at the English language from the perspective of what the English have done over centuries? Why do you keep speaking the eeEEvil language of the colonizers? Are you even capable of expressing an opinion that's not a glaring equivocation fallacy?

Your position is that millions of catholics, including all those popes, were not the living church and have nothing to do with real catholicism. Do you realize how daft that sounds?

It does sound ridiculous. This is, however, not my opinion and I have never expressed anything suggesting that.

 

[Beyond Everything]

No you have not, is my point. Neither was it the position of what you think the Church is nor is that thing the Church.

So, the catechism explicitly and clearly opposing clairvoyance and charms and healing magic which received the stamp of approval of a pope has nothing to do with the church. lol

Why don't you precisely and positively define what you mean when you type the Church (must be capitalized for due respect). Because OP was asking about the catholic church.

 

[Nembra]

So, the catechism explicitly and clearly opposing clairvoyance and charms and healing magic which received the stamp of approval of a pope has nothing to do with the church. lol

I've never said that it has nothing to do with the Church. It's fascinating that you keep doing this: you read something then choose to ignore half of it and answer some vague vibes the other half gives you. The CCC has its issues and requires careful interpretation and contextual reading but the matter is not as black-and white as you're trying to read into what I said.

Why don't you precisely and positively define what you mean when you type the Church (must be capitalized for due respect). Because OP was asking about the catholic church.

It's capitalised because it's a proper name. That's how spelling works in this language, you of all people here should remember learning it rather clearly. The Church is Yahveh's Bride, as descriebed in the Bible. All the other stuff follows from that key of interpretation, but to make it a bit easier: there is a certain set of moral ideals that define a Christian you can find in the Bible. If someone freely and willingly acts in ways misaligned with those ideals then they can't be considered to represent Christianity and, as follows, the Catholic Church.

 

[MorganBlack]

I get this is hard for people to get, so it's probably worth unpacking more , especially since 90% of Western magic was communicated through Christian and Catholic culture.

Catholicism has a vast array of healing charms, from wound charms to charms to stop bleeding. The real question is what you - in your brain meats - believe is powering them.

The Church has historically drawn a line against "superstition." If the healing is attributed to the charm itself, or to the person, rather than to God, it is regarded as superstition. That said, the relationship is not a simple rejection. The Church also tolerated and sometimes absorbed folk practices. Some charms were Christianized (like the Three Good Brothers charm invoking Jesus and Longinus) rather than condemned.

But the whole idea that you are doing "magic" by your own power - or through a source other than God - is the dividing line. So yes, the Church is against most modern magic theory on the grounds that it considers it superstition, not because it is against the specific objectives that Anglo culture calls "magic," which has come to be, post-Enlightenment, a totalizing catch-all term for all spiritual effects and workings.

And this is why modern magic is at odds with Catholicism, not the healing charms per se, but the "superstitious" elements people use to explain why they think it all works.

Case in point. Pope John Paul II and other conservative Catholics were fine with the Tarot. The issue is not Tarot, but "superstition. " From all around great guy (and self-identified Satanist) , Mitch Horowitz:

 

[Beyond Everything]

The CCC has its issues and requires careful interpretation and contextual reading but the matter is not as black-and white as you're trying to read into what I said.

What does this mean? You are entirely vague. Contextualize clairvoyance for us in the catechism.

The Church is Yahveh's Bride, as descriebed in the Bible. All the other stuff follows from that key of interpretation, but to make it a bit easier: there is a certain set of moral ideals that define a Christian you can find in the Bible. If someone freely and willingly acts in ways misaligned with those ideals then they can't be considered to represent Christianity and, as follows, the Catholic Church.

Yes, see that's very convenient and allows one to completely jettision their brain and intuition. Whereas my argument is that people who pray as catholics, who drench themselves in catholic energies and then behave in whatever manner are being influenced by those christian egregores. Which include centuries of esoteric suppression. It's a product of christianity. Something like that doesn't go on for 1500 years without being a feature. It isnt an anomaly. But other people wont to shut their eyes tight and pretend it's 'something else'.

Post automatically merged: Friday at 12:03 AM

I get this is hard for people to get, so it's probably worth unpacking more , especially since 90% of Western magic was communicated through Christian and

And this is why modern magic is at odds with Catholicism, not the healing charms per se, but the "superstitious" elements people use to explain why they think it all works.

So magic derived from one's own abilities is superstitious , whereas believing in a god who created the earth as the center of the universe isn't . I get that its their argument, but their theses have already been exploded.

Some charms were Christianized (like the Three Good Brothers charm invoking Jesus and Longinus) rather than condemned.

Well, looking it up I see that the church did in fact end up condemning that charm.

Case in point. Pope John Paul II and other conservative Catholics were fine with the Tarot. The issue is not Tarot, but "superstition. " From all around great guy (and self-identified Satanist) , Mitch Horowitz:

He may have had the tomberg book on his table. I don't really think we should read too much into that. It's not like he publically proclaimed the value of the tarot. Furthermore, Paul 2 condemned the practice of yoga and zen. lol Why would anyone put stock into anything someone like that says? I dont get this compulsive need to jump into a cage and contort one's self trying to pretend the church is a friend to esotericism based on a few scraps. If we examine tomberg's book itself- I read it ages ago, but I recall it having a rather histrionic take on gurdjieff.