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

Thanks, Don! Excellent article!

Gaudior, who has long made the point that reading about winged horses and hippogriffs in MODERN writing is not inherently more dangerous than reading about them in Greek Mythology

Here's another thought on Harry Potter by Orthodox layman Terry Mattingly:

J.K. Rowling, Inkling? [tmatt.gospelcom.net]

I really do not want to end up going back and forth, which I fear, will be the end result soon. So I will answer a few more points, and know my views have been made.

Once again, you are doing precisely what I said is done. Your interpretation of what is said, makes you say "it's not just me." Yet, first and foremost I will note -- you quote the old Catholic Encyclopedia. Guess what. It's not the teachings of my Church! The C.E. is a collection of articles, many out of date and utterly fanciful, representing the views of the authors of the articles. Some are good, some are utterly falacious. Look up St Photius in there sometime.

Let's parse this a bit. The art of performing actions beyond the power of man with aid of powers other than the Divine -- like a computer? Like an automobile? Like an airplane. "If God meant man to fly, he would have given us wings!"

Now is all magic based upon the expectation of interference of demons or lost souls? Anyone who has studied the history of magic would know the answer to this. No. There are all kinds of magic, demonic magic is rightfully denounced. But natural magic, ever hear of it? It is not based upon "spirits" but on finding the occult powers of nature, and using it to our advantage. In the textbooks, one of the primary examples of natural magic that was used to explain what was meant -- was a magnet and how it attracts iron. Alchemy was, in many parts, a form of natural magic studies (and don't get confused into thinking Alchemy was all about a search for making lead into gold; the theory was an evolutionary theory of substances, but used to show spiritual evolution in the soul, to make us pure like gold).

But the point is -- this article has not studied the history of magic, and as such, is quite useless in the discussion. And it also evades the points I have been making long before I engaged in this response.

We get the point of this text. And once again, it is quite inaccurate on many issues. Some Fathers might have demanded their expulsion, others welcomed them. Synesius of Cyrene is a really interesting case in point, and he was not just revered in his time alone. He was a philosopher before being made bishop by Theophilus of Alexandria, and, what is more, a Platonic philosopher who used the Chaldean Oracles. Indeed, you will find, many who were familiar with them, and used ideas from them, not just Synesius.

Yes, astrology was condemned -- as I pointed out, because it was taken to remove free will. But most astrology does not do that, either way; it only suggests the kinds of influences one might have in one's life, not what precisely will happen. Marsilio Ficino in fact made that point clearer: if you know what is influencing you, the more you can counter-act it, and truly free.

So, with the Church, I fully agree- when free will is entirely removed, be it astrological or calvinist, I will say: nay. But to dismiss anything associated with astrology as Satanic, is to ignore the long history of astrology --within the Church. Who do you think put together our calendars? So much for many claims in the article for astrology disappearing -- it didn't, not in the West, and not in the East.

Once again, an article which is not really to the point, ignores a lot of evidence (even in Scripture itself). Divination, acording to many, was a means of letting God communicate and tell them what to do. Example: casting of lots to determine the replacement of Judas. Where did they get this idea of casting lots from? Divination. Pure and simple.

But again, the main issue with divination was fatalism. And so much for old C.E. articles.

[Qoute]
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.
[/Quote]

It is not clear what is and what is not forbidden. What is clear is that domination of will, fatalism, is rejected. We will agree there. But what is rejected. Using some power to do what we normally can't do? Get rid of your car and computer. And you still fail to understand my point on the Saints. Who said they repented of their studies?

This shows a keen lack of knowledge on the topic. The word, occult, was used for the occult specifically, because it was a "hidden world" of forces. IT was not for the common person, so the knowledge was hidden knowledge. The whole term, occult, connects with its foundation -- and practice -- and beliefs.

Only absurd to those who have had no study on the subject. The meaning is connnected to what the occult sciences were all about, gay is not connected to what being homosexual is about. And the point on herb lore is far from absurd. You should study some of the Inquisition manuals. Herb lore was a form of natural magic. Oops. Sorry getting technical again. Yes, herb were seen as used by those who practice the occult, and it was this reason herb lore itself was, in general, dismissed by modern medicine -- until it was recently discovered there was more to it.

Well, the Inquisitors thought otherwise. So did those who studied the occult sciences. Of course, tarot decks are not in their origin for divination. I already mentioned that. And I don't know of people using ouija boards to foretell the future; it's problem is not divinization, but necromancy. Have I said people should use a ouija board? No. But I also do think we should not demonize those who have done so, especially non-christians, and thinking they are Satanic. That really is too far. Would that they believed in Ouija boards as real; they would have far more faith in the supernatural, and in the continuation of life -- than many, if not most, Christians. We could use that on our side!

We are talking about the research and studies, both by Christians and non-Christians. And studying them is not condemned by the Church. And a careful examination of the Church's position will also point out what exactly is being condemned, and it is issues of evil will, domination, unjust control over nature (and many have rightfully said atomic bombs are the most greivous kinds of black magic ever produced), and fatalism.

The fact remains, St Thomas Aquinas, at this period of history, Aristotle is to be held as condemned and you can't use his thought.

Did you know that those who practiced the occult would agree with you? These are not trivial things to be triffled with. And who has ever said they should be?

No, you have not shown what the Church teaches. You have given some rhetoric, and some bad history. Try again. I will be interested in what you have to say, especially if you get what the Church says out. But as I said, I must now just watch and let the wheels turn. I have said my say.


Pax et bonum
Henry

Alex,

Glad you like the distinctions -- it is one which I think many people need to be cognicant of. It can help explain why Arian martyrs were declared Saints, for example. It isn't just a modern phenomena So it has helped lead to canonization, though I think it has helped make some canonizations, as you pointed out, not happen. If the person was controversial, even moreso a problem for canonization. IF they were not too controversial in their time, but known to be holy, and just have some odd views out of ignorance, like the Arian martyrs.. then fine, you can canonize them easily.

That is how I read history.


But even such actions do not mean one will not be canonized. Look to St Photius, who is recognized by Catholicism as well. But again, being controversial does make it more difficult to fully rehabilitate. I would agree.

I do appreciate the Oriental Orthodox-Orthodox dialogues and how they worked out the way to recognize each other's saints. And it was based upon this kind of distinction.

I have been to his cell in Florence. However, I find problems with Savonarola, and I think it is because he became a rigorist, tyranical ruler, that causes problems for his canonization. If he had stayed out of politics, so to speak, he probably would have had no problem with his canonization. But the cruelties, making the Inquisition blush, that come from his reign in Florence.. alas..

Anyway that is my take on him. Plus, he seemed to turn on Pico, which I don't like; they really got to be happy, burried together.

Pax
Henry

On Harry Potter, I think two articles I like giving to people are these:

The first, "Harry Potter, a Christian Hero?" http://www.cesnur.org/recens/potter_mi_eng.htm . This was published in the Italian Bishop's newspaper, and it is a nice, short look at Potter, and the good qualities of the series.

The second is "Harry Potter Vs The Muggles" http://www.cornerstonemag.com/imaginarium/features/muggle.html . This article has far more depth, and is a scholarly discussion on Harry Potter and fairy stories in general.

So, is it questionable, as was asked? No. Not at all. It is a great series, with important moral themes.

Dear Henry,

You are absolutely right - the Eastern/Oriental Orthodox theological commission discussed the matter of the mutual recognition of their saints and teachers.

One conclusion they came to is that the mutual lifting of the anathemas against each other's teachers/saints would be an act of reestablishment of communion between them.

And the fact that St Dioscoros used his fists and was otherwise violent - if we excluded such from the calendar for that, we'd also have to look into dropping saints like Nicholas of Myra too .

But the local saints of each church would, of course, have their cults remain in place.

It is interesting that the Armenian Church, for centuries, did not have St Severus of Antioch in its calendar - and sometimes even suspected him of heresy!

The Georgian Orthodox Church is a wonderful case of a Miaphysite/Oriental Church that came into communion with the Orthodox Chalcedonian family - and all its saints are now generally venerated throughout Eastern Orthodoxy, including those actually condemned personally by Greek Orthodox theologians in their lifetime e.g. St David of Garesja "that putrefaction from Georgia" as he was called by the Greeks. (Of course, Severus continues to be called "headless" in the Byzantine liturgy . . .).

I stirred up a lot of controversy when I first mentioned the Arian saints here some years ago. One Orthodox poster ( a convert, no doubt ) wrote and told me this was further evidence the Catholic Church was heretical.

When I told him the Orthodox calendar had these saints too - he said that was impossible blah-blah-black-and-white, a la zealous convert style!

But St Nicetas and St Sabas the Goths were undoubtedly Arian and Nicetas was ordained a priest by the Arian Ulfilas who, as you know, wrote that famous Arian credo.

The major stumbling block for Savonarola's cause is actually not his caustic, authoritarian style (other saints much more caustic have been canonized).

It was his work to have Pope Alexander VI deposed by collecting petitions etc. There is a local Franciscan Beatus who, I understand, will never be canonized precisely because he once signed a petition like that. And this even though Alexander VI was as sorry an excuse as ever for a pope!

One question I'd like to ask you for your advice and insight is the matter of rehabilitation of teachers once condemned by ecumenical council.

Some Orthodox say that for us, today, to lift anathemas placed on others by Councils would be to say that the Fathers of those Councils were in error.

What say you?

God bless,

Alex

Alex,

You raised one important question which I have pondered, and I do not know if I have any solution to it. I have "my take" which is something else, and one liable to change by the day.

But first wanted to mention something about converts. You are correct, a lot bring in baggage with them, and have an outlook which is not entirely unified to the church they unite to. But I think that is the case for people within the churches as well. Our culture helps breed this kind of attitude. Yet, I agree that I think a lot of converts (to Catholicism or Orthodoxy), show a lot of their former ways after they converted. In fact, I am sure all of us do, in one way or another (I am a convert, after all -- but I think the style of my conversion was different).



I wrote a quick, small paper on the topic for an Ecumenical Theology course last fall. On the dialogues and the difficulties and also the compromises which have taken place. It's amazing how much has changed within the Orthodox world after Vatican II, at least in relation to ecumenical dialogues within Apostolic Traditions. Yet, it must be said, as my other paper for the source suggested, it went back further and they were willing participants in the WCC's formation and were in many ways on the cutting edge of ecumenism at the beginning of the 20th century.


It is interesting that the Armenian Church, for centuries, did not have St Severus of Antioch in its calendar - and sometimes even suspected him of heresy!

And who can forget St Constantine's baptism by Eusebius?

Many Saints stood in opposition to a Pope, so that is also not the only reason either. I think it is a combination of many factors and I do think his rigorism was a little heretical (but then I enjoy pagan philosophy which he condemned).

And now to your question. My answer I think is really a non-answer, and tries to dodge the question -- but it is one I have also seen given in many of the documents in the dialogues between the Oriental Orthodox and Rome and Constantinople. The basic line of thought is: the condemnations, themselves, the canons that is -- the declaration of heresy, is probably legitimate. The question is who does it rightfully apply to. This question can be difficult -- for example, many have said, and probably rightfully, Nestorian was not "Nestorian" and if he lived to see the full Chalcedonian Christology, he would have easily fit in with that solution. So what Ephesus condemned, theologically, was right to condemn; but when dealing with matters of Christology, and human frailty at trying to put answers down -- sometimes the answers can be borderline heretical in description -- and like the Arian Saints, nonetheless could be held by someone holy and thus Saintly.

The condemnations therefore, applied, but not to the people per se. That is also how I read the solution to this problem in the dialogues. In this way, one does not have to say "they were wrong" just point out "there was more to it than this."

Thus, it is easily acknowledged, for example, the condemnations against Eutyches were also given, eventually, by the Coptic Pope as well.

I hope that makes some sense.

Dear Henry,

Yes, excellent!

There is the possiblity that Eutyches himself, historically the "true Monophysite" wasn't a Monophysite after all, since he admitted that Christ was consubstantial with His Mother - he refused to admit, as you know, that Christ is consubstantial with "us."

I like your use of "there was more to it than that."

And the Fathers were mainly concerned with identifying the heresy itself and condemning all those who would espouse it, then and in the future.

That it was possible for two Churches to be separated from one another on the basis of a mutual misunderstanding - that certainly wouldn't be the first time in history that that happened!

And may all converts be like you !

Alex

Alex,

Yes, a lot of miscommunication, and a lot of politics, I think is the main reason for separation between the Apostolic Churches. It usually is shown how Rome has played political games and done a lot of wrong, but it is often forgotten that Rome is not the only one.

I am one who is more than willing to say "here is where Rome went wrong" and get many people who praise me. Then I say, "And here is where Constantinople went wrong," and the same crowd (Orthodox) will hiss.

The sad fact is we all want to think our side is pristine and pure, but no side holds up. I do think that many of the Non-Chalcedonians hold up more, and better, but we can't dismiss many of the political dealings which went on there. Theophilus of Alexandria is a rather famous example (but I do think he is abused, too much, in the criticism. I recently wrote a paper on him, and sent it in to the Journal of Early Christian Studies, trying to understand him in a better light).

Moscow rose, in a political fued within the Chalcedonian-Orthodox, and set itself up as third Rome in the process. I think a major problem of Chalcedonian-ORthodox politics stems from this time onward. Alas.

On the positive side, I read works like Bulgakov's "By Jacob's Well" and just wonder what it would be like if we tried to implement these ideas instead. Maybe they are wrong... but it seems like the political fueds certainly have not worked, either.

Pax
Henry

Dear Henry,

That's why I never discriminate against saints on the basis of their church affiliation!

Recently, I saw the civil war movie "Gods and Generals" that was basically about the life of General Thomas (Stonewall) Jackson.

The presentation of his life in the movie challenged me to read up on him as I had some misconceptions about him.

He was not only sincerely religious, but was also in favour of freedom for slaves etc.

He founded a bible school for African-Americans in the South to which he contributed money and also participated in as a teacher.

After a major battle victory for the Confederacy, he sent a letter to his home town which did not contain any details about his brilliant military prowess - but a contribution toward the bible school and a request to inform him about its growth and development!

The African-Americans who knew him considered him their great friend and they often placed small Confederate flags into the earth of his grave as a memorial.

I've no doubt as to the sanctity of this man.

Alex

Alex,

Yes, quite a few of those who stood with the Confederates did not agree with slavery. Just like many in the North actually did.

Slavery certainly was one issue that helped make the war happen, but it certainly was not the only issue, nor the primary concern for many of the Confederate leaders.

I might say I do not agree with them, but I understand their position and I find many of the ways they have been treated, in myth, is as bad as you say.

And you probably can guess I find many Christians like CS Lewis to have been Saints as well. (I made a pilgrimage, years ago, to visit Wheaton where Inkling artifacts reside, and put my pipe on Tolkien's desk and inside Lewis' wardrobe). It should not surprise you, I also find many non-Christians fit this role as well. Holy, virtuous pagans I do not think are only in the pre-Christian times. The Spirit blows as it wills... not in contradiction to the truth, but illuminates in ways which we humans often cannot fathom.

Pax
Henry

Alex

Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson is an extremely intriguing individual. He was a military genius, but like alot of geniuses, he was also mad as a hatter. To give you some of the best of Stonewall Jackson. 1. He wouldn't post a letter if he believed it would still be in route on a Sunday. 2. He believed one side of his body was considerably heavier than the other, and believed by continually raising his one arm, that the blood would run out of it and lighten it. Holding up his arm at the 1st Battle of Manassas he managed to get shot in the same hand he was raising. 3. Jackson was so punctual that he would stand in pouring rain rather than deliver dispatches a minute before the appointed time. 4. Jackson believed that God had fixed the exact hour of his death, and subsequently had no fear of death during the heat of battle. 5.Jackson once had a meeting with the family of a young soldier sentenced to death for desertion, when they begged him to spare his life, Jackson asked them if they could convince him that the execution would be unjust, then he prayed with them, wept with them, and when he was finished, he had the young soldier shot. 6. During his days as a cadet, Jackson would not even change out of his winter uniform until given orders to. He was capable of showing compassion though. He conducted regular Bible studies for his slaves, and while away from home during the Civil War, he wrote frequent letters home inquiring about his slaves religious education.

Jackson was a totally sincere man who believed he was doing right in the eyes of God, but had I been around then, I think I'd have preferred serving with JEB Stuart instead.

Thanks Don, Deacon John and Henry for your links on Harry Potter. Found them to be good reading.
Tari

Lawrence,

That is totally cool! I loved the way you made your point.

Pani Rose

Dear Lawrence,

I still think highly of General Jackson - there were Fathers of the Church with more idiosyncracies than him!

The Canadian Catholic bishops are investigating the Cause of our former Governor General G. Vanier.

It has been discovered that during WWI, this Servant of God was an officer in charge of the firing squad . . . So far, he hasn't had his cause dropped thoughm, following orders and all that.

I think General Jackson would have fared much better on a discussion forum like this one than I ever did.

Thank you for sharing your breadth of knowledge, as always.

It is great that our final talk here is about someone of the stature of General Jackson!

Now I'm thinking who I could have offended by any of this . . .hmmm . . . certainly not the Administrator since he is from Virginia too!

Anyway, I'm outta here!

God bless!

Alex