Why Does The Church Oppose Magic And What Counts As Magic?

[Basilisa Marie]

I wanted to avoid the liturgy to avoid scandal, but yes, the liturgy could easily be seen as a public act of high ceremonial magic, albeit one whose method is of divine origin and has been given a divine guarantee.

 

It sounds like you're defining magic as anything dealing with the supernatural in a ritualized or methodical way. There are LOADS of problems that come up when you blur the line between religion and magic. 

 

But there's the rub - divine origin, divine guarantee. If it isn't Church-sanctioned, it doesn't have an origin in God, and it doesn't have the "guarentee" seal of approval. So...why are we bothering with things that don't have a divine origin? 

[mortify ii]

Hm... no I have not! I have read about some of the MKUltra stuff, but not this. Reading now.

I would say that this is probably blasphemous.

The point is "magick" is a lose term with a wide array of meanings. Learning to play golf is "magick" in some sense. Now in the narrow sense it generally means employing the power of a fallen spirit to create a particular end, and associating the liturgrgy in this sense is blasphemous, but that was not my point obviously. The way hiwrphant uses it, anything of a ritual nature appears magickal, and academically speaking, there is a very thin line between magick and religion.

[The Hierophant]

"Why bother?" is a good question.  It is a question, however, that could also be asked of luminaries like Thomas Merton, who became deeply entrenched in Zen.  I think the simple answer is that other spiritual traditions have their own things to offer, provided they are compatible with and can be absorbed into the Christian stream.  There is a danger here of excess, but that shouldn't be used to stop all exploration.

[Credo in Deum]

"Why bother?" is a good question. It is a question, however, that could also be asked of luminaries like Thomas Merton, who became deeply entrenched in Zen. I think the simple answer is that other spiritual traditions have their own things to offer, provided they are compatible with and can be absorbed into the Christian stream. There is a danger here of excess, but that shouldn't be used to stop all exploration.

Since we have the fullness of the Truth (who is Jesus Christ) in the Catholic Faith, then what benefit is there in the exploration of other faiths? If all they can offer are partial truths, then why pursue them as if they're going to provide us with something the Catholic Church doesn't already posses? Apart from trying to have a better understanding of these faiths, I do not see any reason to explore them further.

[mortify ii]

"Why bother?" is a good question.  It is a question, however, that could also be asked of luminaries like Thomas Merton, who became deeply entrenched in Zen.  I think the simple answer is that other spiritual traditions have their own things to offer, provided they are compatible with and can be absorbed into the Christian stream.  There is a danger here of excess, but that shouldn't be used to stop all exploration.

 

I think there is a yearning for depth that may sometimes be lacking. Some people are naturally not content with stopping at a basic grasp of the faith. They want to delve into the esoteric and advance themselves spiritually. Sad but sometimes Catholics turn to the spiritually advanced in other religions, perhaps because we lack them in our own?

[Basilisa Marie]

"Why bother?" is a good question.  It is a question, however, that could also be asked of luminaries like Thomas Merton, who became deeply entrenched in Zen.  I think the simple answer is that other spiritual traditions have their own things to offer, provided they are compatible with and can be absorbed into the Christian stream.  There is a danger here of excess, but that shouldn't be used to stop all exploration.

 

But that exploration is dangerous; you know exactly what kinds of things can start happening when you get involved in magic. You've experienced them. Scientific research into something like ESP would be different, because you're observing measurable, inherently natural phenomena, assigning no spiritual value to it. But even the body builder has to be careful that he or she isn't strengthening his or her body for vanity's sake, or out of a need to feel powerful. 

Take the idea that other spiritual traditions have things to offer and it's good that they be absorbed into Christianity to its logical conclusion. You have to put serious limits on what you mean by that. Otherwise, you're implying that the Church doesn't have the full deposit of divine revelation, because the Church is somehow missing something that it needs to get from some other source. Other religions are good in so much as they have things in common with us. It's not that we both participate in some higher concept (or Platonic form) of Good. It's that they're similar to us. Sometimes the Church has "absorbed" (or "baptized") various practices of other cultures or tailored explanations to a particular context, but all of that happens on a practical level of "discipline." It's all done in order to help people better understand the Gospel message, not to augment the Gospel with something external. It's a fine distinction, like walking the edge of a cliff. 

You talk about the danger of excess, but who is the judge of what's excessive? Yourself? How can you be sure you won't be blinded by your own desires that may be corrupted by temptation and going too far? You would have to be under the care of an experienced, holy spiritual director and be able to trust his or her judgment. If the Church consistently urges serious caution to people who experience supernatural occurrences that are considered to be of divine origin, why would the Church give any less caution to someone dabbling in non-Christian practices?  

So again, why? It all seems to me like a serious occasion of sin against prudence. And serious occasions of sin can turn into sins themselves, when they deal with serious matters and one voluntarily and needlessly places oneself in that position. I'm not saying this to cast judgment on you, but to illustrate that there's some pretty high stakes in the game. 

[Basilisa Marie]

Oh, and welcome to Phatmass. :)  

[truthfinder]

I think there is a yearning for depth that may sometimes be lacking. Some people are naturally not content with stopping at a basic grasp of the faith. They want to delve into the esoteric and advance themselves spiritually. Sad but sometimes Catholics turn to the spiritually advanced in other religions, perhaps because we lack them in our own?

 

If we start saying that the Catholic faith lack something, it begins to be seen less as the true faith.  Spiritual advancement is not something that we can necessarily force.  We can do our best to attain holiness by cutting out sin, but as a type of mystical advancement, that is a grace (and I dare say also the opportunity for large crosses.)  

[The Hierophant]

I don't think that Catholicism lacks spiritually advanced individuals; I just wanted to point out that, as far as I know, people like Thomas Merton and Bede Griffiths never ran afoul of any Church authority when investigating Zen and Hinduism.  For one thing, even if there is nothing doctrinal to be gained, there might be techniques that are of spiritual value that Christians have never come across or developed.  Such may be the case with certain forms of meditation, for example.  While Catholic mysticism has always placed a great importance on grace and the supernatural, I don't see why that means we can't take advantage of the natural.  Something analogous may be involved here, insofar as some Hermetic rituals are essentially meditative prayers and involve no paganism.  But I think that there is little more that I can say on this matter that could be persuasive.

[Socrates]

All forms of divination and "magick" are clearly condemned in Catholic teaching as grave offenses against the First Commandment:

 

2116 All forms of divination are to be rejected: recourse to Satan or demons, conjuring up the dead or other practices falsely supposed to "unveil" the future.⁴⁸ 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. These practices are even more to be condemned when accompanied by the intention of harming someone, or when they have recourse to the intervention of demons. Wearing charms is also reprehensible. Spiritism often implies divination or magical practices; the Church for her part warns the faithful against it. Recourse to so-called traditional cures does not justify either the invocation of evil powers or the exploitation of another's credulity.

 

 

~ Catechism of the Catholic Church

 

I basically second everything Nihil, Basilia, and others have said in this thread.

 

Any involvement with the occult, "magick" or pagan rituals should be avoided like the plague.

It opens you up to demonic influence, which is always bad news.

 

"For all the gods of the Gentiles are devils" ~ Psalm 96

 

Hinduism contains a lot of weird and evil stuff, and I'd recommend staying away from it altogether.  Demons, being fallen angels, can work preternatural "miracles," and often mix truth with lies to deceive persons.  Best to just avoid non-Christian religion altogether.

[Socrates]

 Sad but sometimes Catholics turn to the spiritually advanced in other religions, perhaps because we lack them in our own?

 

 

With all due respect, that is complete nonsense.

 

There are countless saints who were/are very "spiritually advanced," (or, rather, filled with the Grace of God), including many great mystics.

People may choose to ignore them, or be ignorant of them, but that's not the fault of the saints, nor of the Catholic Faith.

 

There is no good in other religions which is not already found in its perfection in Christ's Church.

 

(I'm also not sure exactly what you mean by "spiritually advanced."  Remember, not all spirits are followers of God.)

[truthfinder]

Merton has absolutely been criticized whenhe started writing about zen meditation.  Many will not read his works at all, and many more will only read his early work. 

[Seven77]

Just in case someone needed clarification, we are not talking about magic tricks, etc. St. John Bosco pray for us!

[Kia ora]

Ah, I think you hit on something by accident here. It is quite possible that such rituals, tapping somehow into a primordial facet of the human experience, are indeed naturally effective at showing some spiritual benefit. But inasmuch as they are properly natural, they cannot in themselves be salvific. They cannot in themselves bring a man to the Faith. They cannot in themselves confer grace.

Faith, grace, salvation, are supernatural. That is why pagan rituals are in vain, and false religions 'worship' ineffectively. At best they can more or less correspond with the natural human desire for God. What they can never do is in any way correspond with the supernatural. To do so would be for them to do nothing less than accept the Truth of the Catholic Church.

 

i agree that faith, grace and salvation are supernatural, in that they are from god. but why do you think that god only grants us faith, grace and salvation in christianity? i see faith, grace and salvation in non-christians. some of the most christ-like people i know are not christians. actually think about that. LIKE christ. i don't mean that casually. i mean actually LIKE christ. that blows my mind. i'm less like christ than these people, even though i believe all the orthodox creeds and all the right stuff.

 

if that is the case that god does not abandon them, but even lifts them up, i don't see why he doesn't do so also through their religion. put simply i'm a follower of christ and with god's help i always will be, but i don't think god damns the billions of others because of their religion and what's more, if you don't find *some* glimmer of god in another person's religion, then i don't think you're looking hard enough.

Edited July 18, 2014 by Kia ora

[Nihil Obstat]

As Catholics we believe that all salvation comes through the Church. That is a non-negotiable. To offer that another religion can be salvific is to essentially ignore Christ's entrusting of His authority on earth to St. Peter and the apostles.

Another religion cannot be salvific, but on a natural level there are people who can come to a sort of natural wisdom in their false religions. But that is as far as they go. If we believe that Christ established the Catholic Church for the salvation of the world, then we must also believe in the positive mandate to bring people to the Church. The Catholic Church, being the one established the Christ, is the only true religion, the only religion that truly unites Man to the supernatural, that is, to God. If Buddhism or Hinduism or Mormonism are salvific, we are denying Christ's own words and actions.

Only the Catholic Church offers true worship to God, in accordance with Christ's command. Grace flows into the world through the Church. It is offered to all mankind, yes even those who practice false religions, but any way in which they might cooperate with that grace happens in spite of their practice of a false religion, and leads them inexorably away from their errors to the Truth of the Faith.

[ChristianGirlForever]

Just in case someone needed clarification, we are not talking about magic tricks, etc. St. John Bosco pray for us!

Thank you for pointing this out. This definitely needs our prayers. It's dangerous stuff!

[ChristianGirlForever]

By the way, I heard about a conference for Catholic priests in Chicago last week regarding exorcisms.  They learned that one of the causes of a person needing an exorcism was getting involved, or even dabbling in the occult.  So, definitely not harmless at all.  :hmmm:  :pray:

[Ash Wednesday]

I'm reading some of the stuff in this thread, and I'm all like

 

[mortify ii]

It's not that the Catholic Church lacks anything but rather that certain things have become latent due to our own spiritual decadence. Sometimes hierarchs fear anything esoteric or spiritual as seeming to bypass the Sacraments and their own authority. 

Edited July 20, 2014 by mortify ii

[Kia ora]

As Catholics we believe that all salvation comes through the Church. That is a non-negotiable. To offer that another religion can be salvific is to essentially ignore Christ's entrusting of His authority on earth to St. Peter and the apostles.

Another religion cannot be salvific, but on a natural level there are people who can come to a sort of natural wisdom in their false religions. But that is as far as they go. If we believe that Christ established the Catholic Church for the salvation of the world, then we must also believe in the positive mandate to bring people to the Church. The Catholic Church, being the one established the Christ, is the only true religion, the only religion that truly unites Man to the supernatural, that is, to God. If Buddhism or Hinduism or Mormonism are salvific, we are denying Christ's own words and actions.

Only the Catholic Church offers true worship to God, in accordance with Christ's command. Grace flows into the world through the Church. It is offered to all mankind, yes even those who practice false religions, but any way in which they might cooperate with that grace happens in spite of their practice of a false religion, and leads them inexorably away from their errors to the Truth of the Faith.

 

hm well. i guess this is why i'm not a catholic. i believe all salvation comes from christ and the church is the msytical body of christ. i however don't identify the catholic church as that body of christ, or indeed any particular one church as that body. i don't think other religions can be salvific. i think jesus is the only one who can save us. but i'd like to make another topic about this, as it's kinda off topic already.

 

i don't believe christ can only be found in christianity. i do believe that non-christians can come to christ, not because their religions are salvific, but because their religions may lead them - as christianity may also lead christians - to christ.

 

the way i understand salvation is here in matt 25 31-46:

 

 

31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, 33 and he will put the sheep at his right hand and the goats at the left. 34 Then the king will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35 for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? 38 And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? 39 And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?’ 40 And the king will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family,[a] you did it to me.’ 41 Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44 Then they also will answer, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not take care of you?’ 45 Then he will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

 

 

 

 

consequently i believe even atheists can be saved. i've met some atheists who are more christ like than christians and i have hope that they will find rest in christ. to be christ like is to be like jesus, kenotically emptying himself out in love for the other person. truly that's what is being talked about in matthew.

Edited July 24, 2014 by Kia ora