Signs in the Zodiac

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Accepting that you aren’t trying to dob in Balthasar as a closet occultist sympathiser I would be interested in how you respond to the only Church report on New Age, Jesus Christ, the Water Bearer of Life.

I’ve not read it particularly closely, but I’ve looked through it. I have no arguments with it.

Have you read Stratford Caldecott’s “An Approach to the New Age”? It’s here. secondspring.co.uk/articles/scaldecott22.htm

Again, I’m quite a fan of Mr. Caldecott and his writing. This paragraph from the end of the article is one I find pertinent to our discussion (particularly in light of your further comments):The enormous growth of the New Age movement in recent times is partly caused by misguided attempts to demythologize and “de-mystify” Christianity. It seeks a transforming contact with mystery (that which transcends us) and with the supernatural - a hunger for true love, for beauty, for healing, for saints and miracles: for poetry not prose. It therefore appeals to the imagination in a way that Christianity in a period of cultural decline finds it increasingly hard to do. The New Age could almost be described as the revenge of the imagination on Western Christians, who in their obsessive emphasis on reason and the will, on naked truth and virtue, have tended to regard feeling and the imagination, if not as actually demonic, then as an irrelevance or a distraction. Writers such as George MacDonald, Coventry Patmore, G.K. Chesterton and the “Inklings” (C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien and Charles Williams) are modern exceptions, but outside the Romantic movement prose has reigned over poetry, despite the perennial tradition of the great “poet-theologians”, from St Ephrem and Romanos to St Thomas Aquinas, Dante, St John of the Cross and Gerard Manley Hopkins.

I don’t believe that the universe is sacramental. A bit off the topic but I don’t think that is orthodox Catholicism, more Rahner and Kung?

To me, a denial of the sacramental universe is an affirmation of the dead and purely mechanistic universe of rationalism and the so-called Enlightenment and speaks to the “demythologizing” impulse which Caldecott identifies above.

Rather than looking to Rahner and Kung, why not look at Wisdom of Solomon 13:5–“For from the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator.”? Or the beginning of Psalm 19? Or why not look at the Incarnation which, more than anything, proves the point that the visible universe is a means through which God makes himself known to us? If the universe is not sacramental, then the universe cannot reveal God to us in any way. If the universe is not providentially disposed to revealing a greater Reality, then it cannot lead us to any knowledge of our Creator–it can only lead to itself in an endlessly indeterminate hell of quotidian detail (the observation of which is what science has become). Clearly this position denies Paul’s whole point at the beginning of Romans–that nature reveals God.

(CONTINUED…)

 

[Deo_Volente]

(…CONTINUED & COMPLETED)

I still think that lawnmowers aside (obviously harmless things) there are spiritual practices, objects etc that have ‘power’ not of Christ and are spiritually dangerous. The Church teaches this. Astrology comes into this.

Lawnmowers are not harmless things. They can cause incredible amounts of damaged if misused.

Re: objects etc. that have power not of Christ, I’m not so sure. My thinking on this so far has been–All power is given or ordained by God. Therefore, an object of power which causes some effect contrary to grace or to Christ represents a misuse, perversion, or misdirection of that power. Remember that evil, according to the fathers, is not a presence but an absence. Like light and darkness–you don’t darken a room by adding darkness, by shoveleing in shadows. You darken a room by extinguishing the light that illuminates it. Evil is the absence of the good. To posit otherwise is to conceive of good and evil as mere binaries and is to court a sort of gnostic or manichaeist worldview.

This is not to deny that there are creatures who intend evil–that is, who intend the destruction of the good. But it is metaphysically impossible for there to be purely evil things or beings–because a thing or a being has being, and being (because it comes from God) is a good in and of itself. A purely evil being is like saying that something is both a circle and a square at the same time–and the absurdity arises from a confusion regarding the nature of evil.

Re the Magi. Why are we assuming they were astrologers as we understand them. Why not just ancient scientists, more astronomers who excited by a planetary conjunction concurrently were aware of a prophecy. That prophecy was also known by the chief priest and teachers of Judea. Prophecy plus Wise Men or Astronomers or Scientists doesn’t equal Astrologers. I think we are labelling them unfairly as Astrologers. We don’t know.

You may not like this response. The word Magi used to describe the Wise Men is from the Greek MAGOS which refers either to the Persian priestly caste (in which case they would be Zoroastran priests) and/or to magicians. Their practice is MAGEIA, that is, magic. (See the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament.) The idea that the Magi were astronomers is preposterous as it assumes a post-Enlightenment, post-Copernican worldview–there was no difference at the time between astrology and astronomy in the ancient world. The latter was the skill needed for the former, and the latter was developed principally for use by the former. That a Zoroastrian priest would be well-versed in the ways of astrology is not a difficult assumption to make. Keep in mind that the Zoroastrian religion also posits the coming of a Messiah, the Saoshyant.

The glory of the Epiphany does not lie in a bunch of scientists (the concept, as we understand it, is unknown to the ancient world) being fascinated by an astronomical phenomenon enough to follow it around. The glory of the Epiphany is that a group of pagan gentile sorcerers, instructed by their arts, but nonetheless disposed to grace, were led by grace to kneel at the feet of the Word Made Flesh.

We do not label them astrologers unjustly. That’s what they were.

In discussions of this sort, my greatest fear is that our underlying assumption re: Christianity is that it is or should be a scientific and “rational” religion. I think that’s a mistake born of an ecclesiastical defensiveness engendered by 18th and 19th century philosophies, trends, and discoveries, resulting ultimately in an anaemic religion trying to compete with scientism for hearts and souls. But that’s not Christianity, at least as I understand it, and there’s no competition whatsoever.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[benedicter]

Grace & Peace!

Have you read Stratford Caldecott’s “An Approach to the New Age”? It’s here. secondspring.co.uk/articles/scaldecott22.htm

To me, a denial of the sacramental universe is an affirmation of the dead and purely mechanistic universe of rationalism and the so-called Enlightenment and speaks to the “demythologizing” impulse which Caldecott identifies above.

(CONTINUED…)

I will read Stratford Caldecott’s article, thank you.

Re the universe being sacramental. I think we are in agreement and I jumped in too hastily. I don’t believe the universe is a ‘sacrament’. But the universe is sacramental in that it plays a part, is the stage so to speak. The bread and the wine are the part of creation provided for the Eucharist etc. Does that clarify things. I am probably a bit defensive and only beginning in the study of theology. So in defining ‘sacrament’ I would go with the well known defined outward sign of inward Grace, ordained by Jesus, by which Grace is given to our souls. The universe is by its own substance of the created order and of itself cannot ‘Grace’ us.

 

[benedicter]

(…CONTINUED & COMPLETED)

Lawnmowers are not harmless things. They can cause incredible amounts of damaged if misused.

Therefore, an object of power which causes some effect contrary to grace or to Christ represents a misuse, perversion, or misdirection of that power. …Evil is the absence of the good. To posit otherwise is to conceive of good and evil as mere binaries and is to court a sort of gnostic or manichaeist worldview.

This is not to deny that there are creatures who intend evil–that is, who intend the destruction of the good. But it is metaphysically impossible for there to be purely evil things or beings–because a thing or a being has being, and being (because it comes from God) is a good in and of itself. A purely evil being is like saying that something is both a circle and a square at the same time–and the absurdity arises from a confusion regarding the nature of evil.

The glory of the Epiphany is that a group of pagan gentile sorcerers, instructed by their arts, but nonetheless disposed to grace, were led by grace to kneel at the feet of the Word Made Flesh.

Deo Gratias!

Re the lawnmowers - of themselves neither good nor bad but in the hands of the user then are correctly or dangerously used. Parked in the garage - no problem.

Re the evil power thing I agree with the first part but do believe that there is an ‘Evil One’ or a evil personified. The Devil if you like. The ‘evil ones’ are fallen angels that is they were once good but turned away from God (free will?) and as with sin compounded into absolute evil. Humans who sin and continue to do so in profound ways then become like these absolutely evil fallen ones and express the will of the ‘Evil One’ rather than anything of God. Consider Hitler as a first class example. God permits evil at this stage of salvation history but from evil He brings good. The Catechism talks of Christs Redemption from the Crucifixion. I suppose I believe that as in the Catholic Church the we have things we call Holy in themselves. Holy ground, the Eucharist, a Crucifix etc it seems to me that evil also claims its unholy things - a voodoo doll for example, and I would include most articles used in occult divination. I may be wrong but better to err on the side of caution. We do not understand these things we can only hypothesise.

It doesn’t mean we need to be focused on these things, personally I am not focused, bothered by or give much spiritual space to the personification of evil. But I believe it exists.

I think that there can be a olt of overkill on the subject, we don’t live in a frightening world of demons in our daily life nor should we go seeking that. But I respect the existence of evil personified. Try to read Fr Gabriele Amorth - he has two books on his work as exorcist of Rome. Then see how you evaluate evil. His experience is rare. I would only stay with him as his reputation is legendary and trustworthy. Every Bishop has been requested to appoint an exorcist I believe. He must have some influence.

I agree with you on the Epiphany - Magi, Astrologers or whatever. It was the pagan gentiles bowing the knee to Christ incarnated. In that time or place what else could they be? Today those outside the faith may be lead to faith through any means that God chooses. But Christians should have no interest or practice at all.

You are very intelligent and very knowledgeable. I am feeling a little outclassed. As I said I am only at the beginning of learning many things. In my third year now. May I ask why are you not Catholic?

 

[pjn6444]

It seems to me that some people here misunderstand a lot of the things they posted about. Some people did make very good and correct points however. To adress the horoscope and zodiac thing. People were skeptical over the only 12 signs thing. Actually most people who are well versed in astrology and the zodiacs also use the chinese zodiac. So there are actually 144 possibilities. I myself was born under the sign of Capricorn in the year of the rabbit. I do not read horoscopes nor do I take them seriously. Mainly because they are so broad. Usually they do not take into account the whole astrology.
Many were critical of how could things out in space effect us. Consider the water and the moon. The moon causes the tides. Eventhough the moon is quite a distance from the water it still exerts power over it.
Further for those who say free will trumps all, they are mistaken. As a previous poster noted that he could not will that his eyes change color, so to in many other things. I can not will myself to do something that it can not do. I actually do not have much control over my life. I do have free will in a lot of decisions. I have free will to follow God or not to, to follow the natural order or not to, to eat well or not to. We have free will as opposed to being instictually based.
Since God knows all: past, present, future. God is outside of time. God created all the stars and planets. God gave them order. He controls where they go. More of in an indirect way. He created the physical laws and he created the stars and planets so he knew then what exactly would happen. Perhaps he put a great order among those stars. Perhaps they coincide with earthly events. Or perhaps he did not. I would consider God to have a lot of purpose to Him. So I would guess on the part of the stars and planets of being of some importance beyond just for scenery.
I am unable to specifically say for or against astrology. The terminology used by the church fathers differ from today. They may have been speaking out against certain parts of astrology. But as the example from earlier mentioned about the magi. The star in the sky coincided with an earthly occurence. The magi who were astrologers followed it and came to Jesus. So I would not say it can be all bad then.
I myself find the concept of astrological ages interesting. However, I do not let it consume my life. So, overall I would just suggest knowing more about something before speaking out against something.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

I will read Stratford Caldecott’s article, thank you.

Re the universe being sacramental. I think we are in agreement and I jumped in too hastily. I don’t believe the universe is a ‘sacrament’. But the universe is sacramental in that it plays a part, is the stage so to speak. The bread and the wine are the part of creation provided for the Eucharist etc. Does that clarify things. I am probably a bit defensive and only beginning in the study of theology. So in defining ‘sacrament’ I would go with the well known defined outward sign of inward Grace, ordained by Jesus, by which Grace is given to our souls. The universe is by its own substance of the created order and of itself cannot ‘Grace’ us.

Hi benedicter–I should probably just be more specific with my terms! While I do believe that the universe is, in itself, an outward sign of an inward grace, you’re right–it is so in a way which is different and more general than the 7 proper sacraments.

I think that there can be a lot of overkill on the subject…

Absolutely!

Try to read Fr Gabriele Amorth - he has two books on his work as exorcist of Rome. Then see how you evaluate evil. His experience is rare.

While I don’t doubt the veracity of Fr. Amorth’s experience (I’ve read interviews, etc.), I must say that regardless of that experience, I would put more weight on the judgment of the Fathers regarding the nature of evil than in this one man.

You are very intelligent and very knowledgeable. I am feeling a little outclassed. As I said I am only at the beginning of learning many things. In my third year now. May I ask why are you not Catholic?

That’s very gracious, benedicter. When all is said and done, though, I’m just an ignorant little man!

Re: why I’m not Roman Catholic, there are two reasons. The first carries more weight for me than the second, however: 1) Papal Supremacy–I think it was a mistake for Vatican I to declare it, and I agree with the Orthodox in this regard: the Pope has primacy, not supremacy. Supremacy arises from a lot of distressing political changes in Europe at the end of the 19th century, piggy-backing on a gradual expansion of papal powers and jurisdiction which does not actually appear early on in early church history. Rome was always (for the most part) regarded as and effusively praised for being a bastion (if not the bastion) of orthodoxy–but the amount of wrangling over papal jurisdictional incursions which occurred early in the church’s history as the Western Empire waned (I’m thinking of the Synod of Carthage, for instance), suggest that supremacy is a development born of political/cultural exigency and not from a confirmation of any theological truth–the seeds for Vatican I were sown when the Pope was the only real authority in the West after the Empire fell. I know the RC position on this–and believe it or not, do not wish to change your thinking on it! But this is one of the reasons why I do not feel like I can be Roman Catholic; 2) what appears, from the outside, to be a culture of scholastic legalism.

I’m a big fan of Pope Benedict and consider him my patriarch (though he himself has dropped the title “Patriarch of the West”). I’ve often thought that Orthodoxy would be a better place for me, but I feel so much more at home in the Western Rite. For now, I remain an Anglo-Catholic.

Congratulations on your third year! That’s fantastic! May God richly bless you on your pilgrimage!

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[benedicter]

Grace & Peace!

I’m a big fan of Pope Benedict and consider him my patriarch (though he himself has dropped the title “Patriarch of the West”). I’ve often thought that Orthodoxy would be a better place for me, but I feel so much more at home in the Western Rite. For now, I remain an Anglo-Catholic.

Deo Gratias!

Well they say all roads lead to Rome. I heard that the Anglo Catholics are requesting communion with Rome. I presume we are talking the same rite here. Anglo Catholic being the traditional wing of the Anglican Church wihich separated over women’s ordination. Also Rome is always seeking communion with the Orthodox and working on it as we speak. So you may not come in the direct but the indirect route.

Yes I love Benedict to, I just trust that the Holy Spirit has provided for Christ’s Church in Papal Authority as it is. With all the deluge of ‘ogolys’ around, movements and countermovements I am glad I have this anchor of Rome with authority which cannot just be sidelined as just another opinion struggling to ‘hold the tension’ (I hate that phrase, heard quite often now) like the Archbishop of Canterbury, who is becoming increasingly irrelevant in the internal struggle in the Anglican Church.

Anyway we digress. I will sign off now. It has been a good blog. Catch you again sometime soon.

 

[christwithin]

Hi,
To start out I just want to point out that I was raised Orthodox Catholic and Orthodox Jewish. For this site I will only refer to my Catholic side of growing up.

The Zodiac and my religion seem to be combined without explanation from the authorities. Like the Pope and our church leaders let’s say. All I get is stay away from it… On the other hand the Pope or even our world leaders really on the stars for all their public appearances and historical planed events. Also I have notice many depictions of the Zodiac at the Vatican. I even saw the Zodiac on the furniture. I ask myself why would this be hidden from us and why is it being used by the Vatican? I know the Bible at one point was band for common people to use. That is why you could only read it in the dead language of Latin till King James and the printing press. Could the secrets of the Zodiac be hidden in our Holy Bible? Why was Jesus born on the Winter Solstice? Why was John the Baptist born on the Summer Solstice? Any time numbers appear in the Bible more than likely they refer to the patterns of stars and planets and how they affect us. Keep in mind the Bible stories are only stories and you have to figure out the true meanings yourself unless you are an initiate of the Mysteries.

If you are of a scientific mind then you should know we humans are made up of mostly water and like the tides of the oceans we are all subjected to the planets and the stars movements. If you were not subjected to magnetic fields then you would explode or implode upon yourself. We are all made up of electrons and protons outside of that we don’t really exist in the physical world. I will end by giving you these questions: Is Christ the Son or the Sun? Are you Christ? Do you have the same alignments as the havens? How many heavens are there?

 

[ahs]

The Zodiac and my religion seem to be combined without explanation from the authorities. Like the Pope and our church leaders let’s say. All I get is stay away from it… On the other hand the Pope or even our world leaders really on the stars for all their public appearances and historical planed events. Also I have notice many depictions of the Zodiac at the Vatican. I even saw the Zodiac on the furniture.

If you are going to make a claim like this, you need to provide some factual basis, some evidence, if you will. The Church’s teaching on these matters is clear that such is a violation of 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.

More can be found here:
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7E.HTM

The comment you made potentially borders, if not crosses the line, on calumny:

2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.277 He becomes guilty:

• of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;
• of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them;278
• of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.

More to be found here:
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P8K.HTM

 

[fred_conty]

It’s attributing intelligence to a non intelligent object.

 

[christwithin]

If you are going to make a claim like this, you need to provide some factual basis, some evidence, if you will. The Church’s teaching on these matters is clear that such is a violation of 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.

More can be found here:
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7E.HTM

The comment you made potentially borders, if not crosses the line, on calumny:

2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.277 He becomes guilty:

• of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;
• of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them;278
• of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.

More to be found here:
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P8K.HTM

As a free thinker I speak freely on chat groups and don’t expect everyone to agree with me. I even try to encourage a dialog by what I say. So please don’t let me upset you but please do respond in what ever emotion you wish.

Factual basis as evidence: The New Catholic Encyclopedia reveals that “astrology was used by Pope Julius II [1503-1513] to set the day of his coronation and by Paul III [1534-1549] to determine the proper hour for every Consistory.

I’m not here for writing a book so any more proof you will have to do the research on your own. Google is a good tool to use for such things. You will also find painting of the 12 apostils like what you said Mark, Luke, John and so on, depicted as members of the zodiac. truthbeknown.com/images/christhelioszodiac.jpg

As for divination… have you even read the Old Testament? Do you know that the Jewish people (the chosen ones who are responsible for creating it) call this collection of books the Torah? The name Tarot cards came from Torah… imagine that?

As far as calumny is concerned well my own church is guilty of that. Why is it wrong to ask questions about what you are being indoctrinated with? Isn’t that what this chat group is all about?

 

[jmdavid]

The word ‘tarot’ is unlikely to have derived from the word ‘Torah’ (despite some claims from more recent times).

As to signs of the zodiac, observe petroglyphs on numerous mediæval cathedrals and simply recognise that these are there as important markers of the solar year.

 

[Hadrianus]

Hello, this is my first post in this forum.

The reason I signed up it’s because I have a very serious question about the horoscope or the “zodiac”. I have a friend who is a very, very knowledgeable catholic and for some strange reason she also believes that a person born in certain day of the year is likely to act some way, for example “aries think this way, tauros act like that” etc…

She is totally against card readings or the horoscope telling you the future but she does believe in what I said above.

What should she know about the signs of the zodiac?

I can’t say whether the 12 zodiacal signs really signify personality characteristics or not. Personal observation inclines me to the opinion that there is something to it, and I think what your friend is doing is harmless. To believe in such things in a religious way is of course superstition and that is unhealthy and has always been rightly opposed by the Church.

 

[Sonseeahray]

I keep away from the occult including astrology. But before you throw the baby out with the bathwater you should check out Jewish Astronomy. Ever hear of the mazzaroth?

Christians see this as relating to the 12 tribes as Moses arranged them around the Tabernacle. They are said to tell the story of Jesus. Never studied this for myself mainly because of low interest. But you may want to check it out.

Larry

 

[Pisces_Adonis]

My God so many misconceptions in this thread.

First of all there were Saints and Popes who defended Astrology.

Saints Zeno,Albert Magnus,and Thomas Aquinas were heavily involved in Astrology and they all emphasized Astrology had an important role in the world.
Pope Sixtus IV and Pope Paul III were astrologers.
Pope Jules II and Pope Leo X supported Astrology’s Practice.
Pope Urban VIII had his own astrologer,T ommaso Campanella.
Roger Bacon,a Franciscan priest, wrote comprehensively about Astrology. (as did Magnus and Aquinas).

Some info from

skyscript.co.uk/magnus.html

There are several books over the Topic of Astrology and Christianity that goes over this that I’m afraid I haven’t read it but I’ll post quotes soon when I read them.

Secondly so many of the posts here bash Astrology with the same old “the Sun Signs don’t match me!!!” argument.

There is far more than mere “Sun Signs” (basically what people would say is your Zodiac such you’re a Capricorn,etc…) in Astrology. There is the Moon Sign and Rising Sign which play faarrr more important roles in defining your personality than your Sun Sign.There are also the Planetary placements and their Aspects,the Midheaven, the Decanate, and Degrees and many more which create subtle effects on a person’s nature.

You may use me as an example.

I may be a Pisces Sun but I’m 26 ° in the 3rd Decanate. So I don’t have so many Piscean Traits. Furthermore I am very vengeful and can be violent as opposed to the stereotypical Pisces thanks to my Moon in Leo 25°(the degree of both Astrolgoers and violent criminals) and Scorpio Rising 8° in the first Decanate (which makes me FAAAARRR more Scorpio than Pisces).

This chart (mine) should show how much more there is to Astrology than mere “Sun Signs” and how complex it can become.

piscesadonis.tumblr.com/image/33777239680

And this is just Tropical Astrology. Don’t even get me into Vedic Astrology, Chinese Astrology, Constellational Zodiac,and so many of the other systems around.

 

[Rezalute]

I recently visited St. Meinrad Archabbey in South Indiana and was taken aback to find the signs of the Zodiac prominently featured in the art of the Monk’s chapter room. The artwork was created in 1942-43 by a Belgian monk, Father Gregory de Wit, who was stranded in the United States during World War II.

I was very curious about the prominent use of these signs.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

My God so many misconceptions in this thread.

First of all there were Saints and Popes who defended Astrology.

Saints Zeno,Albert Magnus,and Thomas Aquinas were heavily involved in Astrology and they all emphasized Astrology had an important role in the world.
Pope Sixtus IV and Pope Paul III were astrologers.
Pope Jules II and Pope Leo X supported Astrology’s Practice.
Pope Urban VIII had his own astrologer, Tommaso Campanella.
Roger Bacon,a Franciscan priest, wrote comprehensively about Astrology. (as did Magnus and Aquinas).

Some info from

skyscript.co.uk/magnus.html

There are several books over the Topic of Astrology and Christianity that goes over this that I’m afraid I haven’t read it but I’ll post quotes soon when I read them.

Secondly so many of the posts here bash Astrology with the same old “the Sun Signs don’t match me!!!” argument.

There is far more than mere “Sun Signs” (basically what people would say is your Zodiac such you’re a Capricorn,etc…) in Astrology. There is the Moon Sign and Rising Sign which play faarrr more important roles in defining your personality than your Sun Sign.There are also the Planetary placements and their Aspects,the Midheaven, the Decanate, and Degrees and many more which create subtle effects on a person’s nature.

You may use me as an example.

I may be a Pisces Sun but I’m 26 ° in the 3rd Decanate. So I don’t have so many Piscean Traits. Furthermore I am very vengeful and can be violent as opposed to the stereotypical Pisces thanks to my Moon in Leo 25°(the degree of both Astrolgoers and violent criminals) and Scorpio Rising 8° in the first Decanate (which makes me FAAAARRR more Scorpio than Pisces).

This chart (mine) should show how much more there is to Astrology than mere “Sun Signs” and how complex it can become.

piscesadonis.tumblr.com/image/33777239680

And this is just Tropical Astrology. Don’t even get me into Vedic Astrology, Chinese Astrology, Constellational Zodiac,and so many of the other systems around.

What the original poster was talking about is new age superstitious hocus-pocus, the quoted post is not about a superstition.

I would like to note that while the alignment of the stars can affect the “passions” of the body the spirit is totally immune, the stars might make you want to do something, but they can’t make you do something.

 

[christwithin]

What the original poster was talking about is new age superstitious hocus-pocus, the quoted post is not about a superstition.

I would like to note that while the alignment of the stars can affect the “passions” of the body the spirit is totally immune, the stars might make you want to do something, but they can’t make you do something.

i do not see in the original post your words: new age superstitious hocus-pocus! i think you are trying to be offensive with your remarks. unknowingly i’m sure, but you sound ignorant in your knowledge of the subject. please don’t take that the wrong way. i have studied this subject for years now and know that the vatican in it’s privileged secret library has much information on the subject. much is hidden in symbols and text as parables for the initiated.

here is the original post:​

Hello, this is my first post in this forum.

The reason I signed up it’s because I have a very serious question about the horoscope or the “zodiac”. I have a friend who is a very, very knowledgeable catholic and for some strange reason she also believes that a person born in certain day of the year is likely to act some way, for example “aries think this way, tauros act like that” etc…

She is totally against card readings or the horoscope telling you the future but she does believe in what I said above.

What should she know about the signs of the zodiac?

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

i do not see in the original post your words: new age superstitious hocus-pocus! i think you are trying to be offensive with your remarks. unknowingly i’m sure, but you sound ignorant in your knowledge of the subject. please don’t take that the wrong way. i have studied this subject for years now and know that the vatican in it’s privileged secret library has much information on the subject. much is hidden in symbols and text as parables for the initiated.

here is the original post:​

Hello, this is my first post in this forum.

The reason I signed up it’s because I have a very serious question about the horoscope or the “zodiac”. I have a friend who is a very, very knowledgeable catholic and for some strange reason she also believes that a person born in certain day of the year is likely to act some way, for example “aries think this way, tauros act like that” etc…

She is totally against card readings or the horoscope telling you the future but she does believe in what I said above.

What should she know about the signs of the zodiac?

The horoscopes in the newspapers and most website are just new age hocus pocus, to do a proper astrology reading requires the year, day and hour (half hour or 15 minutes is better). The alignment of the stars can influence bodily desires, but they can not influence the soul. Most people only have experience with the horoscopes in the paper, those are hocus pocus, they are meaningless whereas Astrology in the Middle Ages was a very serious science.

 

[Boston]

A very important Catholic by the name St. Augustine of Hippo wrote that astrology is false, because princes and poor men are born on the same night under the same stars.