G
_Gandalf
Guest
You misunderstand me, I’m not using LOTR to justify my beliefs, I’m simply making parallels. Besides, if you check, you’ll notice it was not I who brought up the subject of Tolkien’s works.
An excellent description.
- Status
L
Lokabrenna
Guest
‘Fertility gods’ is simplifying it a bit, but yes. As to why I don’t use the term “Heathen” (which is usually the label someone who worships the Norse gods adopts) it’s…complicated.
D
Deo_Volente
Guest
Grace & Peace!
As many have noted, the fundamental difference, as I see it, does indeed involve will and intent (ours or God’s?), but not so much a distinction between active and passive. St. Benedict’s watchword of “ora et labora,” prayer and labor, describes the day to day life of the monk as well as the life of prayer–our prayer is a means by which we open ourselves to God, and our work, by grace, is to constantly seek to enlarge our capacity to receive God. This work is acomplished both within and without the act of prayer (though the goal is to pray without ceasing) and requires what some mystics have called an active passivity, a certain vigilance. The end is to become instruments of God’s will, co-creators with God and by God’s grace of the renewing of the world. It is both active and passive, but the keynote is making room for the will of God, not magnifying our own will.
But often, so much imprecatory prayer is little distinguished from the common conception of magic in that in it (through our goodness, through our piety, through our actions, through our well-chosen words, whatever) we try to force God’s hand–to make him do what we want him to do. And when prayer becomes this, it is little more than “works righteousness”–God should do what *I *want him to do because he loves me and I’m doing all the right things. But there is never a time that God is not showering his blessings upon us–thus prayer ideally is a means by which we get out of the way of God’s goodness in our lives and in the world, a means by which we align ourselves with the good things that God, not we(!), are doing in the world.
You may say that this still bears some resemblance to magic, and I’m thinking here of Ficino and Mirandola (and Agrippa) and the idea of sympathies. And yes, sometimes the technologies, if you will, are remarkably similar. For instance, when I pray the Office, I’m very conscious that I’m praying a rite as well, involving genuflections, the making of sacred signs (the sign of the cross), invocations, etc. I’m very conscious that praying the Office atunes me to the natural ebb and flow of life through the “practice” of the seasons of the Church year, and to the communion of Saints with whom I pray.
But, in the end, I’m conscious that what I’m doing in the Office is *not *magic as its commonly understood. Though, to be honest, you would be hard pressed to convince me that it was not a form of theurgy. In this sense, prayer [particularly ritual prayer, such as the Office] could indeed be called High Magic or Sacred Magic as the point of all prayer, ultimately, is to prepare the ground of the heart to receive and bear God in one’s life and in the world. But this is the “magic” of grace freely given, the transforming nature of the Power, Wisdom and Love of God at work in the soul and in the world. Prayer allows us to become part of that work, fashioning us into vessels of grace. Ora et labora. This is not passive, only, but, again, an active passivity. In this sense then, to me, there can be no higher magic than the genuine theurgy of prayer. And the great formula of this high magic of prayer is this: Ecce ancilla (servus) Domini, fiat mihi secundum verbum tuum. Behold the handmaid (servant) of the Lord, let it be to me according to thy word.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
I find this to be an interesting topic.
As many have noted, the fundamental difference, as I see it, does indeed involve will and intent (ours or God’s?), but not so much a distinction between active and passive. St. Benedict’s watchword of “ora et labora,” prayer and labor, describes the day to day life of the monk as well as the life of prayer–our prayer is a means by which we open ourselves to God, and our work, by grace, is to constantly seek to enlarge our capacity to receive God. This work is acomplished both within and without the act of prayer (though the goal is to pray without ceasing) and requires what some mystics have called an active passivity, a certain vigilance. The end is to become instruments of God’s will, co-creators with God and by God’s grace of the renewing of the world. It is both active and passive, but the keynote is making room for the will of God, not magnifying our own will.
But often, so much imprecatory prayer is little distinguished from the common conception of magic in that in it (through our goodness, through our piety, through our actions, through our well-chosen words, whatever) we try to force God’s hand–to make him do what we want him to do. And when prayer becomes this, it is little more than “works righteousness”–God should do what *I *want him to do because he loves me and I’m doing all the right things. But there is never a time that God is not showering his blessings upon us–thus prayer ideally is a means by which we get out of the way of God’s goodness in our lives and in the world, a means by which we align ourselves with the good things that God, not we(!), are doing in the world.
You may say that this still bears some resemblance to magic, and I’m thinking here of Ficino and Mirandola (and Agrippa) and the idea of sympathies. And yes, sometimes the technologies, if you will, are remarkably similar. For instance, when I pray the Office, I’m very conscious that I’m praying a rite as well, involving genuflections, the making of sacred signs (the sign of the cross), invocations, etc. I’m very conscious that praying the Office atunes me to the natural ebb and flow of life through the “practice” of the seasons of the Church year, and to the communion of Saints with whom I pray.
But, in the end, I’m conscious that what I’m doing in the Office is *not *magic as its commonly understood. Though, to be honest, you would be hard pressed to convince me that it was not a form of theurgy. In this sense, prayer [particularly ritual prayer, such as the Office] could indeed be called High Magic or Sacred Magic as the point of all prayer, ultimately, is to prepare the ground of the heart to receive and bear God in one’s life and in the world. But this is the “magic” of grace freely given, the transforming nature of the Power, Wisdom and Love of God at work in the soul and in the world. Prayer allows us to become part of that work, fashioning us into vessels of grace. Ora et labora. This is not passive, only, but, again, an active passivity. In this sense then, to me, there can be no higher magic than the genuine theurgy of prayer. And the great formula of this high magic of prayer is this: Ecce ancilla (servus) Domini, fiat mihi secundum verbum tuum. Behold the handmaid (servant) of the Lord, let it be to me according to thy word.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
L
LDNCatholic
Guest
I understand that it’s an oversimplification, sorry I’m hardly an expert on Norse mythology I just took a guess that Vanic related to the Vanir who I was taught were fertility and (possibly) harvest deities, though wasn’t the sea god part of the Vanir? So you don’t worship any of the Aesir? I feel a bit ignorant now. Didn’t know there was a split.
I did not know about the use of the word heathen in that context. Thanks for that
R
Robert_in_SD
Guest
Great. Welcome to the forum.
That’s an interesting internet definition. I agree that it’s not quite complete.
That seems to stretch the concept more than necessary. One can attempt to acheive a goal by non-physical means that are separate from the supernatural. For example, one can attempt to acheive a sense of calm by meditation - a non-physical act. Or one can attempt to acheive wisdom through contemplation - again a non-physical act. I would say that magic departs from these and other non-physical attempts to acheive a goal by interjecting the attempt to subjugate the supernatural. One attempts - through magic - to subdue a supernatural element (be it a spirit, or demon or other matter) and compel it to act for your benefit to acheive a desired result. This kind of activity is the antithesis of prayer. Here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says about magic and divination:
Prayer, on the other hand, involves something altogether different. Rather than seeking mastery over the supernatural, It involves a humbling of one’s heart and a willing submission to a God who is Love.
I would argue to the contrary, that a great prayer life requires great care, humility and true devotion, whereas magic is about forcing your will upon others through supernatural means (hardly a task calling for finesse). To me, it seems that prayer is to magic what love is to rape. I don’t mean to sound inflamatory, but I think it is a fair comparison, given the Church’s strong rejection of the practice.
I mean this in all sincerity: I think you should read more about Catholic prayer. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is a good start. Try here.
Peace,
Robert
L
Lokabrenna
Guest
It’s not so much that there’s a split, in fact, I’d say the majority opinion is that you SHOULDN’T split up the pantheon. I suppose you could say that I believe in all the deities (all deities in general, actually) I’m just more selective than most regarding which gods I worship, for a variety of reasons. A rough analogy I would make would be that Catholics recognize “the communion of saints” but families and individuals have their “favourites” and certain saints have a particular interest in certain occupations, situations, persons, places, or things. Saint Anthony of Padua, St. Anne (Mother of the Virgin), and Saint Patrick are important to my family (Irish Catholics who settled in Quebec), for instance, but that doesn’t mean that they won’t ask other saints for their intercession when the need arises. It’s obviously not a perfect analogy, though.I understand that it’s an oversimplification, sorry I’m hardly an expert on Norse mythology I just took a guess that Vanic related to the Vanir who I was taught were fertility and (possibly) harvest deities, though wasn’t the sea god part of the Vanir? So you don’t worship any of the Aesir? I feel a bit ignorant now. Didn’t know there was a split.
I did not know about the use of the word heathen in that context. Thanks for that
I don’t want to derail the thread, but feel free to PM me about it if you want, and don’t worry about seeming ignorant, I know it’s confusing for a lot of people (even other Pagans) and asking questions is how one learns, and there are no stupid questions either, questions are just questions.
G
_Gandalf
Guest
To Deo Volente,
A very thorough description. It looks like you spent a good while typing that, so thank you for your time.
Though I see why you use the term “Subjugate”, I would - for the most part - disagree. For that matter I would also disagree with the term “Supernatural”, but that’s another discussion. If you have some planks and you want to build something out of them, you will need nails to do so. These, when used properly, will cause the planks to adhere together in virtually any combination you wish, and in the process change how they would otherwise interact. Magic in this instance would be like the nails. It does change the nature of things, but am I subjugating the planks by forming them into a pattern? In a way, yes, though it’s an odd way of putting it.
Using that definition though, we subjugate the physical world using mundane methods all the time. Magic often accomplishes similar feats, just in a different way.
Personally, I believe that we were given all of our abilities for a reason, and refusing to use them is almost an insult. We, as a race, have many gifts, the ability to do magic being among them, why ignore that? Why ask for something when you can make it yourself?
A very thorough description. It looks like you spent a good while typing that, so thank you for your time.
Actually, meditation is a very common practice when casting magic. For me at least, the same is true for contemplation.
Though I see why you use the term “Subjugate”, I would - for the most part - disagree. For that matter I would also disagree with the term “Supernatural”, but that’s another discussion. If you have some planks and you want to build something out of them, you will need nails to do so. These, when used properly, will cause the planks to adhere together in virtually any combination you wish, and in the process change how they would otherwise interact. Magic in this instance would be like the nails. It does change the nature of things, but am I subjugating the planks by forming them into a pattern? In a way, yes, though it’s an odd way of putting it.
Using that definition though, we subjugate the physical world using mundane methods all the time. Magic often accomplishes similar feats, just in a different way.
A harsh analogy, though you do get your point across. Though look at it from my point of view for a moment. When doing magic, you are like a carpenter. If you need a table, you make a table, and you can make it as ornate and functional as you have the skill to do so. With prayer, you are asking a carpenter to make you a table, and hoping that you get a good one, if you get one at all.
Personally, I believe that we were given all of our abilities for a reason, and refusing to use them is almost an insult. We, as a race, have many gifts, the ability to do magic being among them, why ignore that? Why ask for something when you can make it yourself?
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
A Christian should ask first, what is God’s Will, and what am I doing or not doing to align myself to Him. When asking God for X, it is with the understanding that His will be done, trusting that God is our provider.
The magic view of the world takes itself into account first. What is it that I want to accomplish, and then seeks to align X to one’s own will. This denies the sovereignty of God over His Creation (us). There is also no trust of God in this view, which is why practicing the occult is a sin for Catholics.
The power of God is not magic, it is His nature, who God IS. God is not a genie in a bottle that we call forth to do our bidding. The view of the power of God as magic is the reason St. Peter rebuked Simon Magus…who is considered the first heretic of the Church.
This doesn’t mean that superstition doesn’t exist among Catholics. It does, but it is denounced.
Hope that helps.
The magic view of the world takes itself into account first. What is it that I want to accomplish, and then seeks to align X to one’s own will. This denies the sovereignty of God over His Creation (us). There is also no trust of God in this view, which is why practicing the occult is a sin for Catholics.
The power of God is not magic, it is His nature, who God IS. God is not a genie in a bottle that we call forth to do our bidding. The view of the power of God as magic is the reason St. Peter rebuked Simon Magus…who is considered the first heretic of the Church.
This doesn’t mean that superstition doesn’t exist among Catholics. It does, but it is denounced.
Hope that helps.
N
Noesis
Guest
Let’s apply this thinking to a restaurant. Why should I consider that a particular chef would be able to prepare a particular meal for me better than I myself could? After all, I do have the innate capacity to learn to cook. What if I apply this to the legal system? Or to healthcare? Or to farming? Or to music, construction, law enforcement, production of automobiles, clothing, or any number of other things? Clearly, my capacity as a human to do something, does not imply I can rely solely on myself to have such a wide spectrum of skills and knowledge, that any other professional is completely outside of my needs.
So your conclusion simply does not apply to real life, and I likewise find no way of being able to apply it to mysterious, mystical, or speculative facets of life either. Unless, of course, we assume that mystical reality is so far removed from observable reality, that we cannot even apply mundane wisdom in order to understand it. But then why make analogies?
R
Robert_in_SD
Guest
But neither requires use of magic.
Yes.
The difference is that we have a divine mandate to use the physical things of this world for the benefit of others and ourselves. But we have no mandate to use the supernatural (i.e. things beyond the physical and material). Instead there is a clear divine prohibition against using such forces, energies, spirits, etc, even if our intention is a positive one. So, while you may analogize that a magician uses magic like a carpenter uses nails, the analogy breaks down when you move from the physical and material to the spiritual and supernatural. The reality is that one does not master a nail’s will or energy and thereby force it into the wood. One uses only physical means. In the case of magic, force of will over another spirit or over supernatural energy, is always necessary.
As a magician, you are “stealing” God’s hammer and using His “nails.” Or to use a different analogy, attempting to gain something through supernatural means is like a layperson performing surgery on himself (or herself). Not only are such persons unqualified to perform the task, but they are hurting themselves in the process, even if what they are attempting to do is obtain a positive result.
One may also have the ability to forge currency, or torture, or create improvised explosive devices. It is not an insult to refuse to perform these tasks, just as it is not an insult to misuse an ability to connect on some level with the supernatural.
First, because you cannot really “make it yourself” in the first place. To the extent you believe you are acting by yourself you are fooling yourself. On another level, it’s an act of obedience to the Divine when one humbles himself (or herself) in prayer. Finally, it is better to pray because God knows, better than we do, whether or not we really need what it is we are asking for. Sometimes, the greatest answer God can give to prayer is is a “No.” The “No” option is removed under your proposed scenario. For example, How do you know it is for your own good to have the job, home, friend, spouse, car, etc., etc. that you are asking for? By prayer, you ask always for a response that is consistent with God’s will and not your own. Magic has no such option and can therefore set you up for disastrous results in life.
Peace,
Robert
G
_Gandalf
Guest
Reductio ad absurdum. A particularly fun method or debate, though a flawed one. There are few tasks done by others that you yourself could not do, though doing all of them is impractical. We will always be dependent upon each other for survival. However your analogies tend to break down when you start comparing professions to magic. I’m sure you see why there’s a gap there.
Robert in SD:
No, but it often helps.
You have no mandate for the “supernatural”. Mainly because your religion forbids it, so it would be kind of silly if it had a mandate for it. Many forms of Witchcraft on the other hand do have a mandate of sorts. Wicca would be the easiest example, because they have the Rede (Similar to your bible).
Actually, no, it isn’t. It’s possible to cast a spell using only your energy, and even if that is not your choice, many spell will additionally use one or more of the elements. In neither case would you need to “force your will over another spirit of supernatural energy”.
There are of course forms of magic that derive their power from such activities, but it is not needed for the practice of magic or the casting of spells.
No, you aren’t really. Remember, you were given the ability to perform magic. You don’t have to “Steal” anything, it was given to you.
Flawed analogies, all of them. Those aren’t abilities, they are tasks. For instance, art is an ability, but you can use that ability to forge currency. The act of forging isn’t an ability, it’s a task that uses an ability. Torture, the making of IEDs, and many other bad things are not abilities, but applications for abilities. Virtually any ability can be abused to produce a negative result.
Magic however is not a task, it is an ability. A spell might be considered a task, but magic? No, that’s an ability.
Which makes magic no different then any other ability we posses. In that sense anyway. You can screw yourself up with pretty much anything if not used wisely. That’s one of the reasons why I am a proponent for using it seldomly, though I have known people that cast spells with a grain of salt (ignore the pun).
E
Earnest_Bunbury
Guest
Given by whom?
G
_Gandalf
Guest
Whether you say it was god, the goddess, the pantheon, or even evolution, it is ours to use. To evasively answer your question, that ability was given to us by the same source that we have the ability to use logic, rational thinking, and even our bodies. It’s just part and parcel of being human.
F
fred_conty
Guest
Hi,
There are those who say that majic is an appeal to the devil’s power and help.
What would you say?
G
_Gandalf
Guest
You know, it is very refreshing to have someone ask about my beliefs, instead of telling me about them. I find it rather arrogant when someone tries to lecture you about your own religion, so thank you for asking.
To answer your question though: I would disagree. As it has been described earlier in the thread (though I don’t blame you for not reading all of it), prayer is in a sense more passive, whereas magic is more active. If magic was asking the devil for something, it wouldn’t be magic, it would be prayer. The only difference would be to whom you are praying.
The energy used in spell work can come from virtually anywhere, though the most common ones (in my opinion) would be either yourself or the elements. Neither one having anything to do with some disembodied force of evil.
Besides, as a Pagan, I don’t even believe that Satan exists. There are evil forces out there, and it is possible that the name “Satan” is either generically referring to all of them or a specific one, but the Satan depicted in Christianity does not exist in my beliefs.
S
Sebas123
Guest
Well, I do respect your beliefs but i will warn you the devil is alive and well, so be careful when fooling with witchcraft
Stay safe and god bless
C
Contarini
Guest
This may be a digression, but there may be more diversity in the Christian concept of Satan than you realize. I wouldn’t say that there is a simple “Satan as depicted in Christianity.” Popular Christianity tends toward a “Manichean” view in which Satan is simply the embodiment of evil, but according to classical Christian metaphysics it is impossible for such a being to exist (since being is itself good).
The view that I find most satisfactory (being in agreement both with traditional Christian metaphysics and with the original references to Satan in the Old Testament) is that of Gregory of Nyssa, that Satan was originally the angel responsible for this planet and that he fell because he objected to God’s purposes of mercy for the human race. This is, of course, not dogma but permissible speculation. (And I don’t necessarily agree with Gregory that Satan will eventually be saved!)
I would further suggest (though here I’m going well beyond anything found in traditional Christian thought) that it’s quite possible that not all the evil powers out there are under the command of the Satan described in the previous paragraph. The assumption that evil is unified seems contrary to the nature of evil as Christians understand it, as well as to our experience of evil; and while it seems to have been universally assumed by orthodox Christians I don’t find it explicitly taught anywhere in Christian dogma.
Edwin
G
_Gandalf
Guest
I can understand your sentiment, though I am inclined to disagree. There are evil forces out there, none of which I want to have anything to do with, but I’m not sure about this Satan concept. But thank you for your concern none the less.
Hmmm… I actually didn’t know Christianity had multiple teachings on the matter. Interesting.
A take on the matter that I have not heard before. Though I’m curious, why make the stipulation that he was in charge of this planet? “Lucifer”, as I recall, means “Angel of light”. That’s what I’ve heard anyway. I don’t see any reason to claim he was in charge of anything (except maybe light), particularly the Earth.
But that’s just idle speculation I guess.
Here, I would have to agree with you. I tend to look at both good and evil in a case-to-case way. It’s not all unified, it’s up to the actions of the individual. I don’t think that there is some unified thing going on with either force, but it’s up to our actions.
F
fred_conty
Guest
Hi,
Have you read the New Testiment passages where Jesus deals with the devil(s)? There are a number of times He speaks to them as beings. If you have, what did you think, or what really happened in those incidents?
Mt 9:33, 11:18, 17:18, Mk 5:15, 7:26. Lk 4:33, 9:42. To mention a few references for your thought. I wouldn’t expect you to answer all of these, but just so you know what I am referring to.
Have you read the New Testiment passages where Jesus deals with the devil(s)? There are a number of times He speaks to them as beings. If you have, what did you think, or what really happened in those incidents?
Mt 9:33, 11:18, 17:18, Mk 5:15, 7:26. Lk 4:33, 9:42. To mention a few references for your thought. I wouldn’t expect you to answer all of these, but just so you know what I am referring to.
G
_Gandalf
Guest
An interesting question. I haven’t read the articles in particular, but I can give you a general summation of my thoughts on devils.
I believe that there are spiritual, or otherwise non-corporeal beings in existence. I believe that this is largely what has inspired the ideas behind angels and daemons. Though like people, some of them are good, some evil, and some simply neutral. You could, if you wanted to, refer to some of the more unpleasant spirits as daemons if you wished, but I disagree with some of the minor meanings of the word “daemon”. If you define it as a spirit that has an evil nature or otherwise tends to cause trouble and havoc, then sure, I agree completely. However Catholicism and I tend to disagree with the more nit-picky details.
As far as what they can do, I honestly don’t know. I do believe possession is possible, though only if the person in question has made themselves vulnerable to begin with (One of the reasons I am against certain forms of magic. If not done properly, it is possible that something unpleasant can happen). Getting rid of them however is kind of hard to do. Once they get somewhere, they usually don’t like to leave.
About my thoughts on what happened, I don’t know. I think that possession is possible, so therefore I have no reason to believe that someone in that time frame didn’t get possessed and liberated. However, if the passage deals with more then just possession, I would have to read to to give you a more in depth answer. If you have a couple in particular that you want me to look at, I would be more than happy to do so. I will be able to give you much more info on those specific passages. As it is though I’m speaking more generally than specifically.
All in all it’s best to let sleeping dogs lie, and not mess with that type of thing in the first place. There are things out there best left alone.
- Status