www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall OCCULT WATCH: PSYCHICS AND DARK FORCE

Alex,

I just try to give answers as I see fit, and not really trying to debate but help people see another side, one which they might not know.

As for me, I have studied a lot, and continue to study, in the history of theology and philosophy-- both which open one up to these questions, and one sees things one might not expect. I am working on a PhD in Systematic Theology, and my approach I know will not please many. Yet it is one I can defend, historically, and theologically.

I would first like to state some of the key figures who are influences in my way of thinking are, in no particular order but maybe somewhat historical: St Clement of Alexandria, Origen, St Maximus the Confessor, St Gregory Palamas, St Symeon the New Theologian, St Thomas Aquinas [his adaptation of Aristotle more than his results], Plethon, Cardinal Bessarion, Marsilio Ficino, Pico della Mirandola, Nicholas of Cusa, CS Lewis, JRR Tolkien, Vladimir Solovyov, Sergius Bulgakov, and St Pavel Florensky.

Now, Florensky alone was well known for his studies into the occult. He even quoted Blavatsky in his great work, "The Pillar and Foundation of Truth." I would say, more than any other in the modern age, St Pavel Florensky represents the kind of approach I take -- look at all, Christianize what needs to be Christianized, recognize the merits, even praise when needed, of those who were not Christians, but bring it all into the Gospel. And bring the modern world the Gospel, in a approach they can follow.

So, what approach do I take? I follow Thomas, Clement and Pavel -- all Saints, in looking to non-Christians, and the "preparatio evangelium" within, but in a way which recognizes it is a preparation in two ways, not just for people to be united to Christianity, but also a preparatio which sees God gave something special to them to add to the Church, to help build it up. With this in mind, I tell people (as an analogy) I look to Buddhism in a way which Thomas did with Aristotle (or Augustine and most of the Fathers, Plato).

This allows me to be open-ended, to look and understand many things which are "occult." Find what is wrong, and mention it and agree, but also don't dismiss all (again many occult-sciences are transformed to modern ones, based upon this transformation).

And, last a thing on new age. Many people see the mystical side of the new age, and so say all mysticism is to be rejected. I know people told me quotes of St Gregory Palamas were New Age, until I told them the source!

Pax
Henry

Yes, the magi were astologers/astronomers. Same thing back then. They were not Jewish or Christian but followers of Zoaster. According to legend, they later became followers of Christ and are buried in Cologne Cathedral.

I know most of us don't think of the daily horoscopes in the newspaper as evil. But some people take them seriously. But I believe some other practices can lead to evil. Notice most palm readers are women? Witchcraft gives women power. And you don't need a priest to perform a ceremony. I think some schools, even Catholic (McDill in Canada) are teaching witchcraft. That is alarming.

Dear all,

I agree with Pani Rose and Alice as to the nature of this evil. The great mistake I am seeing others make as regards Wicca and other occult practices is to claim that such "power" is real, and as such, natural, and OK to use, as it is only a thing of nature, another discovery! It is argued that the Church has mystery, so how can we criticize the mystery of others?

Here is the problem with that line of "reasoning"...One, as Alice points out, divination is against the Canons of both Churches. Not, "planning for the future", not "predicting on the basis of factual historical information, market research, and trends" (ie: the Commodities and Stock markets), but the sin involved in calling on the 'occult forces", demons, etc., in order to gain for oneself "secret knowledge". Also, given that modern medicine has told us about the power of suggestion, in that people who believe they will die or be injured on a certain day "convince" themselves of this, and DO die...the Church is very correct to warn us of allowing the suggestions to take root in our minds, and to influence, however mildly, our behavior. By believing in a PARTICULAR future, our free will is affected. For instance, I have known people who were told by Tarot Readers that the next great love of their life would be the proverbial "tall, dark, and handsome man"...net result was dates with blond men were refused, and admittedly BECAUSE the fortune teller said the next love would be a dark haired man. In such case, did the person not hear of this foolishness, she may have found happiness with the other (very wonderful) man who offered it! But, believing in this, any element of let's see how life itself goes...vanished. Free will on her part to do so, but malignly influenced by being told what 'would' happen, and rejecting others on basis of this 'prediction". hence, free will adversely affected.

As regards possession, such does actively take place, most often among the susceptible. However, it is a mistake again to say that this is the ONLY way the evil one influences us, and the rest is mere bad behaviour on our part. Men work evil deliberately, often. However, the Church tells us that what draws us AWAY from Christ, is sinful. The litmus test in this should be, do crystals, tarot, ouija, etc. bring us closer to Christ? No, they do not. I know of otherwise intelligent people who believe in spirit guides, and cannot visit museums without thinking they find "trapped souls" and must set them free by mystical means. Naturally, they reject Christianity, because it tells them WHAT to do.

How patriarchal! But YOU have mysteries...

Yes, we do. And it is the SOURCE which must be considered. The grace of the Holy Spirit imparted to those at Pentecost gave them the power they had. Therefore, the power is, as coming from the Ultimate Good, GOOD. Our saints never used this to any other glory than to God.

Is there another source of power? Of course! The evil one himself. Does that make the power less real? Less natural? No, because the evil one IS real, and exists in nature. Therefore, his power is also "natural". We "discover it" through rituals, and through focus on that which is NOT of the Church. "But it is NATURAL!", we cry...Surely natural=that which is good for us to know, in the interests of science.

Thank you, Dr. Faustus. Call up demons, or ask them to lead you, as "Guides"...and do not then wonder why you are left with pagan beliefs (I once worked with a practicing witch, she brought in her "textbooks" and coven rules to read during lunch...the absurdities presented in them would be readily apparant to one who had not been conditioned to think this power is a good thing, for power's sake).

Calling upon "The Goddess" means you are NOT calling upon Christ. Turning to potions to make others fall in love, gain wealth, happiness, etc. means you have ceased to pray "THY WILL BE DONE" and replace it with your own "occult means". This is true whether someone was GRANTED power, or whether they merely THINK they have power. They have left prayer and humility, in favor of occult influence, and therefor, have caused great harm to their souls. THAT is why the Church correctly condemns this. It is irrelevant whether true power is bestowed through the evil one. What matters is abandoning Christ in search of that power.

And, as an aside, one of the best lines from the very first "Harry Potter" book was "If people knew about us, they would be wanting magical solutions to their problems all the time." When we look for magical solutions, we cease striving for theosis.

We as a society have also learned that it is bad to label something "evil". We as Christians recognize the importance of being able to discern evil, and shun it, as we shun everything that fails to bring us closer to Christ.

The greatest triumph of the evil one in this age is to teach us that all "truth" is relevant, and that he does not exist...

Gaudior, in continued outrage that Ouija boards are sold at Toys R Us...The occult is NOT a toy.

Henry, thanks for being a voice of reason in the midst of a lot of pious nonsense.

Dear Moe,

And what am I?

Chopped liver?

I agree with much of what Henry said, you know . . .

Just because I like Ronald Reagan is no reason for you to show partiality here

Didn't you see my recommendation of you to the Administrator for finally figuring out what spiritual benefit we really do get from our union with Rome?

Alex

When did the views of the Church become "pious nonsense?"

Gaudior, who cannot understand that line of thought....

Dear Gaudior,

Moe is well-meaning, although he does come across as being, well, like I am sometimes!

But he can be made to see reason . . .

I particularly liked his analysis of the ultimate reason why being in union with Rome is a good thing for EC's!

Anyone who can summarize such a complex issue so succinctly can't be all bad!

Alex

So much which needs a bit more of a reponse, I think. First, I will say, do not confuse your understanding of what the Church says or does, as the same thing as what the Church says and does. We should ALL heed that warning. It is the problem of modern times, post Reformation, I fear. We often think our own understanding is the same as the Church's, and then ask questions like, "When was what the Church teaches pious nonsense?" The answer is, as I said. Do not confuse what we say with the Church. I know you think of yourself as from the "Church Militant." But what about those who are in the "Church Triumphant" who explored "the occult?"

I have already listed a few Saints who have done so. St Albert the Great is, perhaps, the most famous. It took centuries for him to be canonized, let alone to be declared a Doctor of the Church. It was because of his Aristotlean outlook in life, which led him to explore all avenues of thought. This includes, and is not limited to, occult sciences like astrology and even magic. Now, like a scientist, he explored them, dismissed some of them, but he did not dismiss it all. And his example is that of one who can be pious, follow the Church's caution, and yet explore within reason.

St Pavel Florensky, again whom I have already brought up, represents this excellence in modern times. He was known as the modern, Russian, Leonardo DiVinci because of how diverse he was in his studies, and how willing he was to consider any possible science, including the occult. He was willing to be harsh, when needed, while on the other hand, willing to also acknowledge the wisdom that those who studied the occult gained.


That has not been what was said. First, some of what witches in history has been indeed, natural. They were famous for their study in herbs. This study, is indeed quite natural, and yet very occult (since it was done by a few, and discoveries were often kept hidden from outsiders). Yet, can we then dismiss the healing power of herbs, just because witches used them and studied then? No. It would only be an ad hominem. Yet, that is the kind of reasoning which is often used in this debate.

Second, as to mystery. Yes, the Church has her mysteries. It is a mystery religion. But do you know the definition of occult? IT deals with what which has been hidden. This is why it is said, in an earlier post, that the Church was occult in her origins. We have often made the mysteries, which we promise to keep hidden in our eucharistic prayers, open. But keeping people from communion, still shows the signs of the occult nature of Christianity. It is not for all, and its mysteries are only for the initiated, like any occult group. Does it make it bad? Not at all. It does, however, suggest for non-Christians reasons to have reservations, just like Christians have reservations with other occult practices. Reservations are justified. Ad hominems beyond resevation are not.

Third, in relation to mysticism. Again, many Christians have lost all sense of the mystical world. Christian spirituality has been lost. Any restoration of it, however, is seen, because it is beyond the materialism of our age, to represent new-age thought. And indeed, it often ties in and is connected to it, since the "new age" is often based upon medieval-age ideologies, restored outside of the Christian context. It holds many of the philosophical beliefs which our forefathers held, before the materialistic nonsense took control.


So, would you condemn the use of lots in Scripture? It IS a form of divination, and it WAS used by the Apostles. Now you can say, "Well, ok, divination through the Holy Spirit is fine." But then that opens many avenues, and questions. Many people who say "no divination, period" forget that divination is found, and approved of, throughout Scripture. Not all kinds, certainly. But again, just saying "that's divination, and therefore evil" really works to condemn those who did good as well. We must be careful, and make better distinctions.

And, once again, secret knowledge. Isn't that what scientists are also gaining? Many people, I think, fear 'secret knowledge' because it is unknown. Some of it can be wicked, agreed. Atomic bombs seems to be more an evil kind of secret knowledge than anything else I can think of in history. Yet it is very scientific, and natural in every word and way. Yet, it is also a demonstration that science is a form of magic, once you learn magic is about control over nature beyond the normal way it works. Just because it is "scientific" does not neglect it is still doing the work of magic. And just because it is now well used and accepted, doesn't mean the principles you establish can't be turned back against those things you use. Be careful.

Yet, suggestion, the power of rhetoric, is itself what you are trying to use right now on this board. Suggestion is found in many ways, and many ways people try to dominate the will of others. Indeed, the more common ways, I find, since they are readily accepted without question, are the ways which I find producing the most evil. And free will is affected, from peer pressure, nationalism, fear of terrorism more than the suggestion of a tarot deck, I can tell you.

Be careful and not turn into a Manichaean or Cathar, please.

I have heard people say the same thing with Mary. Sure, I agree, non-Christians who believe in other gods, are not calling on Christ, at least directly. But, again, does that make them demon possessed? We have in Scripture many pagans who turned out to be holy, and even Saints -- Job, for example.

Not just with potions, but more often with businesses practices, and capitalistic ethics, I have to remind you.

Willing to call something evil is not the same thing as being correct in making such a label. Many people shunned St Thomas Aquinas and called him evil, too. Because he turned to those evil pagans!

So scholasticism, and the Alexandrians, were forwarding evil?

Henry, who is in outrage that Moses figures are sold at Toys R Us... the Bible is not a toy.

Dear Henry,

The point you raise about St Albert is very insightful!

I understand, and you would know much more than me, that Meister Eckhart has been formally rehabilitated (and could be raised to the honours of the altar as a result) ?

There are other examples of such pioneers who were condemned as heretics but contributed so much to our spiritual/philosophical Christian understanding of things - I won't mention one particular person as talking about him got me into trouble before .

(Is St Pavel Florensky recognized by the Moscow Patriarchate or still only by ROCOR?)

A good example of the tightrope some people have walked in this respect has to be Blessed Joachim di Fiore.

As you know, a number of his ideas were condemned by the Church, posthumously.

But he submitted his writings to the Church, declared his loyalty to it and said that he accepted in advance whatever corrections to his words the Church deems fit.

Also, the writer and former monk, Thomas Moore, mentions a number of points you have in his popular works.

I attended a public lecture by him in Toronto some years back and he discussed "magic" and its relation to the Church.

Abra-cadabra and "poof!" I'm gone,

Alex

Alex,

Meister Eckhart technically was not himself condemned, either. Some of his ideas were considered heretical or dangerous, and written up in a Bull, which was published soon after he died. But the declaration also said Eckhart had been a loyal witness to the Church, and willing to reject what the Church would tell him to reject, and so said specifically he was not a heretic.

Eckhart almost became a footnote in history, a lot of his writings lost or forgotten. When scholarship began, often it was by Protestants saying how bad he was treated, and created the myth of Eckhart the heretic. They read the condemnations, without reading the context. And sadly, many of them were out of politics (Dominicans vs Franciscans), and he was at the wrong end of the fight (Dominican living in a Franciscan territory).

Recently, it is true, there is research being done on the condemnations themselves, and a determination is being had if they were justified, or misunderstandings. There is also work by some to get him canonized, but that will be much more difficult to get done. I have no problems with it myself. He is another favorite of mine and I have many of his works I hand-typed onto my website.

St Pavel Florensky, I believe, is still only, barely, recognized by ROCOR. They canonized him for his martyrdom, published a book written by him with the label St Paul Florensky (Salt of the Earth), and then soon after, started complaining when they saw he was "liberal." I recognize him, as you can guess, as one of the great Saints of the 20th century, not just for his witness in martyrdom, but also for the work and labor he did. Truly a remarkable man, and a role model for my studies.

I know Thomas Moore's writings, but only have an essay of his in a collection of writings on Ficino. He has helped bring a popularized understanding of Ficino into the public. For that he has done some good, but I also think some harm (for I think his representation is somewhat off the mark, or at least, skewed to not show him in his totality).

This brings up another interesting point of history. One which connects to the Byzantines, in all actuality.

Ficino helped bring Platonism to the West, and in the process, almost single-handedly started the Renaissance. He helped establish art as a craft of respect, and not just "carpentry." He helped shape the formation of opera. He helped found the idea of "Platonic love." And of course, he was strongly interested in Platonism, perenial philosophy, and how it can connect with Christian thought. This included the Hermetic tradition, which shaped Renaissance ideas of magic, alchemy, astrology, medicine, et. al.

Now, Ficino's source and sponsor was the Medici, who were impressed with Cardinal Bessarion and Plethon at the Council of Florence. Through the Medici, Bessarion in exile from the East, was able to help unleash Platonic thought, with Ficino as the translator and commentator. The Renaissance revival can be seen as the culmination of philosophical studies in Byzantium, revised by Plethon, and sponsored and supported by Bessarion. In this way, Ficino, the Renaissance, were really all directly influenced by the East, and specifically, one of the major (and I think undermined) Eastern Bishops to join in communion with Rome -- one who I would hope would be declared a Saint, but because of politics, I do not think will be.

Dear Henry,

These are NOT "my" beliefs, they are the beliefs of YOUR Church.

(From the Catholic Encyclopedia):
Catholic theology defines magic as the art of performing actions beyond the power of man with the aid of powers other than the Divine, and condemns it and any attempt at it as a grievous sin against the virtue of religion, because all magical performances, if undertaken seriously, are based on the expectation of interference by demons or lost souls. Even if undertaken out of curiosity the performance of a magical ceremony is sinful as it either proves a lack of faith or is a vain superstition. The Catholic Church admits in principle the possibility of interference in the course of nature by spirits other than God, whether good or evil, but never without God's permission. As to the frequency of such interference especially by malignant agencies at the request of man, she observes the utmost reserve.

Same source, different article:

From the start the Christian Church strongly opposed the false teachings of astrology. The Fathers energeticaly demanded the expulsion of the Chaldeans who did so much harm to the State and the citizens by employing a fantastic mysticism to play upon the ineradicable impulses of the common people, keeping their heathen conceptions alive and fostering a soul-perplexing cult which, with its fatalistic tendencies created difficulties in the discernment of right and wrong and weakened the moral foundations of all human conduct. There was no room in the early Christian Church for followers of this pseudo-science. The noted mathematician Aguila Ponticus was expelled from the Christian communion about the year 120, on account of his astrological heresies. The early Christians of Rome, therefore, regarded the astrological as their bitterest and, unfortunately, their too powerful enemies; and the astrologers probably did their part in stirring up the cruel persecutions of the Christians. As Christianity spread, the astrologers lost their influence and reputation, and gradually sank to the position of mere quacks. The conversion of Constantine the Great put an end to the importance of this so-called science, which for five hundred years had ruled the public life of Rome.In 321 Constantine issued an edict threatening all Chaldeans, Magi, and their followers with death. Astrology now disappeared for centuries from the Christian parts of Western Europe. Only the Arabic schools of learning, especially those in Spain after the Moors had conquered the Iberian peninsula, accepted this dubious inheritance from the wisdom of classic times, and among Arabs it became incentive to pure Astronomical research.

In particular, St. Augustine ("De civitate Dei", VIII, xix, and in other places) fought against astrology and sought to prevent its amalgamation with pure natutal science.

As the article below says, it had a resurgeance in the middle ages, and even the support of a stray pope or two...yet goes on to condemn the fatalism it causes:

The remarkable physical discoveries of recent decades, in combination with the growing desire for an elevated philosophico-religious conception of the world and the intensified sensitiveness of the modern cultured man -- all these together have caused astrology to emerge from its hiding place among paltry superstitions. The growth of occultistic ideas, which should, perhaps, not be entirely rejected, is reintroducing astrology into society. This is especially true of judicial astrology, which, however, by its constant encouragement of fatalistic views unsettles the belief in a Divine Providence. At present Judicial astrology is not justified by any scientific facts. To put forward the theory of ether waves as an argument for astrological assertions is not in accord with the methods of sober science. Judicial astrology, therefore, can claim a place only in the history of human error, while, however, as an historical fact, it reflects much light upon the shadowy labyrinth of the human soul.

Same source, on Divination: As prophecy is the lawful knowledge of the future divination, its superstitious counterpart, is the unlawful.

Wherever Christianity went divination lost most of its old-time power, and one form, the natural, ceased almost completely. The new religion forbade all kinds, and after some centuries it disappeared as an official system though it continued to have many adherents. The Fathers of the Church were its vigorous opponents. The tenets of Gnosticism gave it some strength, and neo-Platonism won it many followers. Within the Church itself it proved so strong and attractive to her new converts that synods forbade it and councils legislated against it. The Council of Ancyra (c. xxiv) in 314 decreed five years penance to consulters of diviners, and that of Laodicea (c. xxxvi) about 360, forbade clerics to become magicians or to make amulets, and those who wore them were to be driven out of the Church. A canon (xxxvi) of Orleans 511) excommunicates those who practised divination auguries, or lots falsely called Sortes Sanctorum (Bibliorum), i.e. deciding one's future conduct by the first passage found on opening a Bible. This method was evidently a great favourite, as a synod of Vannes (c. xvi) in 461 held forbidden it to clerics under pain of excommunication, and that of Agde (c. xlii) in 506 condemned it as against piety and faith. Sixtus IV, Sixtus V, and the Fifth Council of Lateran likewise condemned divination. Governments have at times acted with great severity. Constantius decreed the penalty of death for diviners.

The latter part of the nineteenth century witnessed a strange revival, especially in the United States and England, of all sorts of superstition, necromancy or spiritism being in the lead. Today the number of persons who believe in signs and seek to know the future is much greater than appears on the surface. They abound in communities where dogmatic Christianity is weak.

The natural cause of the rise of divination is not hard to discover. Man has a natural curiosity to know the future, and coupled with this is the desire of personal gain or advantage, some have essayed, therefore, in every age to lift the veil, at least partially. These attempts have at times produced results which cannot be explained on merely natural grounds, they are so disproportionate or foreign to the means employed. They can not be regarded as the direct work of God nor as the effect of any purely material cause; hence they must be attributed to created spirits, and since they are inconsistent with what we know of God, the spirits causing them must be evil. To put the question directly: can man know future events?
From a theological standpoint divination supposes the existence of devils who have great natural powers and who, actuated by jealousy of man and hatred of God, ever seek to lessen his glory and to draw man into perdition, or at least to injure him bodily, mentally, and spiritually. Divination is not, as we have seen, foretelling what comes from necessity or what generally happens, or foretelling what God reveals or what can be discovered by human effort, but it is the usurpation of knowledge of the future, i.e. arriving at it by inadequate or improper means. This knowledge is a prerogative of Divinity and so the usurper is said to divine. Such knowledge may not be sought from the evil spirits except rarely in exorcisms. Yet every divination is from them either because they are expressly invoked or they mix themselves up in these vain searchings after the future that they may entangle men in their snares. The demon is invoked tacitly when anyone tries to acquire information through means which he knows to be inadequate, and the means are inadequate when neither from their own nature nor from any Divine promise are they capable of producing the desired effect. Since the knowedge of futility belongs to God alone, to ask it directly or indirectly from demons is to attribute to them Divine perfection, and to ask their aid is to offer them a species of worship; this is superstition and a rebellion against the providence of God Who has wisely hidden many things from us. In pagan times when divining sacrifice was offered it was idolatry, and even now divination is a kind of demonolatry or devil worship (d'Annibale). All participation in such attempts to attain knowledge is derogatory to dignity of a Christian, and opposed to his love and trust in Providence, and militates against the spread of the Kingdom of God. Any method of divination with direct invocation of spirits is grievously sinful, and worse still if such intervention ensues; with tacit invocation divination is in itself a grievous sin, though in practice, ignorance, simplicity, or want of belief may render it venial. If, however, notwithstanding the client's disbelief the diviner acts seriously, the client cannot be easily excused from grievously sinful cooperation. If in methods apparently harmless strong suspicion of evil intervention arises it would be sinful to continue if only a doubt arise as to the natural or diabolical character of the effect protest should be made against the intervention of spirits; if in doubt as to whether it be from God or Satan, except a miraculous act be sought (which would be extremely rare), it should be discontinued under pain of sin. A protestation of not wishing diabolical interference in modes of divination where it is expressly or tacitly expected is of no avail, as actions speak louder than words. A scientific investigator in doubt about the adequacy of the means can experiment to see if such superhuman intervention be a fact, but he should clearly express his opposition to all diabolical assistance. The divining-rod, if used only for metals of water, may perhaps be explained naturally; if used for detecting guilty persons, or things lost or stolen as such (which may be metals), it is certainly a tacit method. To believe in most of the popular signs simply ignorance or weakness of mind (see SUPERSTITION).

In the N.T. diviners are not specifically mentioned except in Acts, xvi, 16, concerning the girl who had a pythonical spirit, but it is altogether likely that Simon Magus (Acts, viii, 9), Elymas (Acts, xiii, 6), and others (II Tim., iii, 13), including the possessors of the magical books burnt at Ephesus (Acts, xix, 19), practised divination and that it is included in the wonders by which Antichrist will seduce many (Apoc., xix, 20). Under the New Law all divination is forbidden because, placed on a higher plane than under the Old Dispensation we are taught not to be solicitous for the morrow (Matt., vi, 34), but to trust Him perfectly Who numbers the very hairs of our heads (Matt., x, 30). In divination, apart from the fraud of the Father of Lies, there was much merely human fraud and endless deception the predictions were generally as vague and as worthless as modern fortune-telling, and the general result then as now favoured vice and injured virtue.


All the above was from the Catholic Encyclopedia, in various articles below.


http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11197b.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02018e.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05048b.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15674a.htm

I think it is very clear that as Alice has said, these things are forbidden by your Church. As to saints who practiced astrology, etc? Both Churches have saints who were murderers, rapists, adulterers, and repented.

Deliberately misstating the position that "occult" simply means "hidden" is to walk around stating that "gay" only means "happy". Yes, that is a meaning of the word, but since it is very clear that it was being used in reference to its more common usage, in contemporary science, your deliberate misunderstanding and comparison to herb lore being thought evil, but now being science, was simply absurd. There is NO similarity between things of the physical world being known only to a few, and between deliberately making a choice to "foretell" the future with ouija boards and Tarot.

Regardless of the accuracy, those who do so deliberately choose to set themselves in opposition to the Church.

If later on, someone scientifically proves those bits of paper or that ouija board from Toys R Us to have true scientific basis, in say, 200 years...

The fact remains that at THIS period of history, they are held to be occult, and dangerous, in many instances. Therefore, someone has made a conscious choice to embrace a passtime the Church tells them not to. Simply the act of disobedience harms the soul, as any other act of disobedience to the Church will, because it is a WILLFUL OPPOSITION TO THE PREVAILING THOUGHT OF THE CHURCH. If you believe yourself to be summoning familiar spirits, so much the worse, as you CHOSE to rely on the demonic, rather than to trust Christ and His Church.

THAT is what the Church teaches. For what it is worth, the beliefs are mine as well. When someone choses to do what he believes to be wrong, he damages his soul.

Gaudior, who also despises Moses dolls in Toys R Us, or anywhere else, as they leave the impression that religion is for children, and something to be outgrown by "rational" people.

Anyone want to comment on reading of anything that might be considered questionable? Harry Potter for example. How is this being received in our churches?
Tari

Dear Henry,

Yes, the issue of the fine distinction between being condemned for believing as a heretic in opposition to the Church and "writing ideas" that were heretical is fascinating!

Ultimately, though, it leads to the same fate for the individual - no canonization.

Bl Henry Suso would not, according to some, disobey the CHurch in this regard by calling his mentor a "saint" or someone who should be canonized etc.

The Oriental Orthodox Saint Dioscoros was himself not condemned for heresy but for his actions at the Robber Synod etc.

Closer historical inspection of even controversial personages can sometimes reveal amazing new discoveries that can lead to rehabilitation, as you know.

The case of Savonarola is a favorite of mine. His society has written much on him, trying to show him to be a martyr, for example.

Critics of this thesis ask how the Catholic Church can canonize a martyr done to death by the Church itself? But he need not be honoured as a martyr, as indeed Joan of Arc herself was never declared a martyr for this reason.

But even Met. Andrew Sheptytsky honoured Savonarola (as did Orthodox Christians), Andrew wrote to support Savonarola's cause that was listed under the "Praetermissi" or "passed over," and the last book Andrew read was on the life of Savonarola and this just before his death.

Two saints I'm aware of had their canonization processes stopped because of their veneration for Savonarola, St Philip Neri and St Catherine of Genoa. But in both cases Rome ordered the causes to proceed.

Alex

I have to admit that I didn't read through this entire thread, but I would reach for Rosary beads or a Prayer rope if I wished to meditate rather than a deck of Tarot cards. I would be un-nerved in finding a deck of Tarot cards among my teenage children's belongings.

Tari, for the most part Harry Potter is considered harmless by the mainstream Churches. Here is an interesting article by an Orthodox bishop concerning the books.

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/harrypotter.aspx

Don