Signs in the Zodiac

[benedicter]

Added note: Benedictgal, I read your story, and it reminded me of another woman I know who was very much into astrology, in fact had trained in it and become professional. Her identity and sense of personal power came from the “special knowledge” she could impart to the clients who came to her for advice. She then had a sudden “evangelical awakening” and is now one of the most judgmental, Pharisaical “inquisitors” you can imagine!..

But using the wine analogy, is the problem in the wine, or is it in the person? Should we ban alcohol and bring back temperance? Or are we called to be moderate and temperate in ourselves?..

I have also asked and submitted it to Him, asking for clarity. All I get back is peace about it. It seems to me that the problem isn’t in the activity, it’s in the heart or the attitude (magi seeking God vs. selfish kings wanting special advantage)…

And for sure Satan is alive in this world. For some he is in wine, for others in astrology – he uses what he can. Some people also believe his favorite place to hide out and do his dirty work is in the Church, because most people think it’s “safe”. And of course the Pharisees obeyed all the rules, and never thought of themselves as “devils”…

.

Thanks for the back handed complement. I don’t think you really meant it??? I didn’t consider that I got any benefit of power I was expecting it to comfort me give me peace for the future. I am not a sure where the Pharisee thing comes in, did you assume it was about power for me as I am so quick to condemn it?

Secondly, you ask in the analogy 'is the ‘wine’ the problem. Yes the ‘wine’ (in this case occult, estorism etc) is the problem as the scriptures quite clearly state that it is and the Church also condemns it.

I am not sure what clarity you are asking God for. In this case the subject of occult etc is already in the scriptures and the Church says so so God is not going to say it is okay. Perhaps you are thinking He will condemn you for it, no He won’t give you angst about it but your conscience will give you the answer and if not then the Church gives you the answer. It isn’t about how you ‘feel’ or detecting God’s personal revelation to you about it - He has already revealed to us about it. My advice is don’t trust your own advice “the problem isn’t in the activity etc” Just reach out in faith and make an act of obedience acknowledge that to God and put it all on your list for your first confession. If our judgement doesn’t agree with the Church’s teaching you go with the Church - that is the hard thing about being a Catholic - obedience. But its brilliant - your spiritual life with Christ will get roller skates on believe me.

I’m sorry if you find this ‘Pharisee talk’ I just happen to think the church has 2000 years of advance wisdom ahead of me…or you.

 

[jman507]

I have a question is the zodiac apart of the occult, where one can abuse the spiritual realm, or is the zodiac just nonsense? If it could make use of the spiritual realm then it would not be completely useless. It could be effective, even if strays from the good. If it’s just nonsense then it is not effective at all.

 

[glenaitken]

I have a question is the zodiac apart of the occult, where one can abuse the spiritual realm, or is the zodiac just nonsense? If it could make use of the spiritual realm then it would not be completely useless. It could be effective, even if strays from the good. If it’s just nonsense then it is not effective at all.

Sometimes a thing can be effective nonsense. a great deal of the “power” in occult practices lies in the very superstition itself. this is why it is a sin against the first commandment. Alot of these things are 1. psycosomatic in nature (ie: superstition), the rest of occult “power” can be divided into the catagories of 2. manipulation of the natural order (ie: potions- basically herbology used not as medicine, but for “magical intent”) 3. decite/hypnosis (excerting psycological influence over another) and 4. demonic

the Occult is not a true spirituality, rather it is a patchwork of the four inigrediants mentioned above, and the basic Credo is, “to each his own, and do what you will”. you’ll find that there are no true comprehensive systems, and most sorces either disagree completely or are flat out wrong. even the views on the afterlife are as varied as the number of occult practicioners. there is no unity, just a bunch of people usually motivated by greed for a percieved power in a sort of battle royal to see who can be king of the hill. the more benign practicioners sit alone or with a few friends and do their things privately.

I think that to say that the zodiac is effective is wrong, and to say that it is not effective is wrong. i think that the influence it excerts over people is largely psycosomatic/supertitious. as i previously stated in this thread, if it has any objective influence over humanity, it would neccesarily be a matter of planets physically effecting the formation of body chemistry in the womb during fetal development by excerting a “pull” such as gravity to cause a brain chemistry pattern. I don’t think that this is likely, however

 

[jman507]

Sometimes a thing can be effective nonsense. a great deal of the “power” in occult practices lies in the very superstition itself. this is why it is a sin against the first commandment. Alot of these things are 1. psycosomatic in nature (ie: superstition), the rest of occult “power” can be divided into the catagories of 2. manipulation of the natural order (ie: potions- basically herbology used not as medicine, but for “magical intent”) 3. decite/hypnosis (excerting psycological influence over another) and 4. demonic

the Occult is not a true spirituality, rather it is a patchwork of the four inigrediants mentioned above, and the basic Credo is, “to each his own, and do what you will”. you’ll find that there are no true comprehensive systems, and most sorces either disagree completely or are flat out wrong. even the views on the afterlife are as varied as the number of occult practicioners. there is no unity, just a bunch of people usually motivated by greed for a percieved power in a sort of battle royal to see who can be king of the hill. the more benign practicioners sit alone or with a few friends and do their things privately.

I think that to say that the zodiac is effective is wrong, and to say that it is not effective is wrong. i think that the influence it excerts over people is largely psycosomatic/supertitious. as i previously stated in this thread, if it has any objective influence over humanity, it would neccesarily be a matter of planets physically effecting the formation of body chemistry in the womb during fetal development by excerting a “pull” such as gravity to cause a brain chemistry pattern. I don’t think that this is likely, however

Well do you rule out then it could be the demonic? Or do you also assume the demonic is natural?

I guess one thing I would say, unless someone is well versed on the zodiac here, it is hard to make good conclusions on what exactly it is. It would be like going to some Fundamentalist site and having them go on and on about Catholics worshipping Mary and her being a false idol. Looking at it from their point-of-view, I can see why they would feel that way, but unless you really get your hands dirty in the fundamentals of the Catholic outlook, your going to easily never see it. The whole Mary question really isn’t something innocuous, it really is like the tip of the iceberg of the structure of Catholic theology, philosophy and world outlook. If your whole outlook on the zodiac are the daily horoscopes in the newspaper, it’s hard to make any good conclusions.

 

[glenaitken]

Well do you rule out then it could be the demonic? Or do you also assume the demonic is natural?/QUOTE]

I wouldn’t at all rule out demonic activity at work in the lives of some practicioners od astrology. I just don’t see the demonic as a primary influence, although that is not to say that there isn’t heavy involvement by them. I see superstition as being a primary cause, and the demonic useing that avenue in secondary ways in an order of cronology. If the sin of superstition isn’t commited through astrology, then a demon really has no footing for an attack through the means if it. I do not count the demonic as a natural cause, but i have given them thier own catagory above because the criterion I used for “natural” would relate to things in the material universe as in the above cooresponding example, and demons are pure spirit and therefore immaterial, and so deserving of thier own catagory as a cause. it isn’t out of the ordinary for them to tempt one into the practice of astrology, however, but this would really be a temptation to superstition.

as far as having to enter the mindset of an astrologer, you would essentaily hav to commit the sin of superstition to have that sort of untimate knowledge. this intimate knowledge, however, would end up being subjective knowledge and therefore “tainted” by the very superstition. without giving ourselves over to astrology, the best we can do is to narrow down the options that would make the “science” reasonable. the above threads that I have posted are the best I can do without actually commiting a sin.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Glen, thanks for your thoughtful posts. I wanted to just clarify my positions on a couple things, though.

1. Symbols of principles- Symbols are not efficacious (as sacraments are). they do not do the thing they symbolize. Ie- a stop sign doesn’t make my car stop. If they represent a principle, they do a poor job because they are not clear nor are they universal.

I think what you are calling a symbol I would call a sign. And this is how I understand the difference–you may disagree and that’s great! More food for dialogue!

A sign merely points to something–directs our attention to a concept or a thing or a whatever. There is what signifies and what is signified. The two may have nothing to do with each other apart from a purely semantic or linguistic connection.

A symbol makes visible or tangible an otherwise invisible or intangible thing. It both points to this thing, as a sign, but it embodies it as well–the symbol says, “I make present a transcendent reality–I share in it and am a fitting window onto it. Look at me, meditate on me, and you’ll encounter the reality which transcends me and which I embody.”

It is in this sense that a symbol is (metaphysically speaking) more real than your breakfast–because the symbol has as its function the manifestation in this contingently-real universe of a greater order of Reality. It is in this sense, and in this sense only, that the Eucharist can be spoken of in the Eastern Churches as a symbol (sometimes it is) and still be understood to be the true body blood soul and divinity of the God made flesh. It is in this sense that the entire universe is symbol and sacrament. The sense in which symbol and sign are interchangeable has nothing to do with the sacramental world-view.

The mechanical universe, therefore, is a providentially ordered symbol of a greater order of reality. And this view of the universe (which is shared by the Fathers and the church) must necessarily admit that the movements of nature and the universe, the stars, the planets, the seas, the tides, the seasons, everything are meaningful and purposeful in themselves. If “the heavens declare the glory of God” as the Psalmist writes, it’s not because the sky is pretty–that’s part of it–but it’s not dependent on our aesthetic sense. It’s because what is in the sky, what the sky is, what it means, what it does, what it contains, is an open window onto a greater order of reality. It is a reflection of the glory of God in all that it is. In this way, astrology can also be a reflection of the glory of God. Once it ceases to be so, it is meaningless, superstitiously divinatory, and utter foolishness. It is the difference between looking at the sun, seeing a ball of flaming gas, and looking at the sun, seeing the heavenly hosts crying Holy Holy Holy (as Wm. Blake was said to have done).

(CONTINUED…)

 

[Deo_Volente]

(…CONTINUED & COMPLETED)

1. What Paul speaks of should not be taken quite so literally. I think that he was mearly trying to express the truth of contemplation he’d recieved as a grace in limited ancient concepts, which the language of mystical theology had not yet begun to develop words for yet.

I wouldn’t be so sure. Paul’s descriptions of his experience have much in common with what would later (and only a hundred or so years later) be known in Judaism as Merkabah mysticism–an ascent to the throne/chariot of God mirroring the vision of Ezekiel. The Dead Sea Scrolls, in the Angelic Liturgy texts, contain similar imagery. The spiritual practices which produced these mystical states were, to all evidence, practiced by the Jewish community–and many scholars believe that these practices were in some part influenced by Greco-Roman philosophy and belief systems. Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan has produced some studies on Biblical meditation practices, Gershom Scholem has written extensively on Jewish mysticism in this regard, and Alan Segal touches on it quite nicely in his study of Western concepts of the afterlife in “Life After Death”.

While the language that Paul uses may not be as sophisticated as the language later used to describe the practices of the Merkabah, for instance, or the intricacies of the spiritual practices of Ignatius of Loyola, or John of the Cross, or Gregory of Nyssa, I think it’s a mistake to assume that his mystical vocabulary was not as developed as his experience of the realities he attempted to describe–or perhaps a better way of saying that is that it’s a mistake to assume that he didn’t know what he was talking about. Of course, that’s the problem with all mystical experience–that it is essentially incommunicable in words. But Paul’s description here clearly references an esoteric practice with which he was fluent and familiar. What that practice was exactly is anyone’s guess, but that it had similarities to the Merkabah/Hekhalot literature that has come down to us is likely if not certain.

“Ancient concepts” are not all that limited, it just requires an understanding of context.

the soul is a spirtiual entity- spirits do not act like bodies, walking this way and that. spirit exists where it acts, and therefore does not travel in tyhe same way out bodies do.

I just want to point out that Paul makes specific reference to not knowing whether his journey into the heavens was in the body or out of it. This corresponds, however, with his view of the body and the soul–i.e., that the resurrection body is a spiritualized body (a radical concept in the ancient world where Pneuma/Spirit and Soma/Body had nothing to do with each other). It has been suggested that Paul’s ambivalence on this question relates to a question he might have had regarding whether or not he experienced the reality of the resurrection body during the course of his vision.

The language of Catholic mysticism does not apply to the language of gnostics or astrologers, as they had ideas about cosmology that were very contrary to christian thought.

You may be surprised by the degree of cross-over and shared usage! Clement of Alexandria very often uses the word “gnostic” to describe the true Christian. Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite uses technical terms borrowed from the mystery religions (such as “hierophant”) when discussing esotericism (as in “The Mystical Theology” or “The Divine Names”) or the church’s hierarchies. Origen to his pupil St. Gregory the Wonderworker (or Thaumaturge) advocates using elements of “paganism” in Christianity in much the same way the Hebrew people used Egyptian gold they had taken with them from the Exodus to adorn the temple. The lesson here is that all things, even concepts that seem dangerous or foreign, can be baptized by the church and seen in the proper perspective in the light of Christ.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Seriously, while I do believe in the exsistance of the paranormal and supernatural, I believe that the truth of a paranormal/supernatural phenomena has to have a basis in science or faith for it to be even slightly truthful.

For what it’s worth, I make a distinction between what is true and what is merely factual. Science deals with fact. Religion with truth. Science is therefore the servant of religion (not the other way 'round), because fact without truth is meaningless. But truth, even unsupported by fact, is always meaningful.

We live in a very materialistic age and are more willing to make a religion of science than we are to believe the truths of our religion. Our religion may be factual. But so what? It is the truth which these facts reveal which is important. Truth is the light which gives facts meaning. Truth is the sun, facts are the moon.

The Bible says God created THE HEAVENS and the earth, and Ezekiel had a UFO encounter. Science has not proven for it to be impossible. Therefore, I can say that is possible that aliens exsist.

A lot of things are possible. I think reducing Ezekiel’s vision to an extra-terrestrial encounter is a subtle denial of the capacity of humanity for mystical experiences, which is a denial of the intimacy of the human creature with its Lord, which is a denial of all religion. Why can’t Ezekiel have had a vision of the Throne of the Ancient of Days? Why does it have to be an extra-terrestrial encounter for it (paradoxically) to be believable?

As for the zodiac, I think it’s a novel phenomena at the best, and akin to gambling at the worst. I was once told that if you read the horoscopes several days or weeks in a row you’ll notice that they use the same predictions and just rotate them from sign to sign.

The zodiac is not quite so novel–it’s been around for some time. And let’s not continue to confuse newspaper horoscopes with astrology. There’s a lot more going on in the latter than in the former.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[benedicter]

Grace & Peace!

what the sky is, what it means, what it does, what it contains, is an open window onto a greater order of reality. It is a reflection of the glory of God in all that it is. In this way, astrology can also be a reflection of the glory of God. Once it ceases to be so, it is meaningless, superstitiously divinatory, and utter foolishness.
(CONTINUED…)

I find this difficult to accept. Astrology is a ‘system’ for understanding the blueprint of personality and circumstances that fate has handed you at birth and suggests ways to ‘counterbalance’ these influences and also how the daily movements of the planets interact and ‘cause’ likely respnses and outcomes that affect your life. Everything has a horoscope - countries, business deals, relationships and individuals etc.

This is heretical and cannot ‘be a relfection of the Glory of God’. It is man trying to ‘ascend to God’ to knowledge of the future and condemns man to a destiny beyond any act of redemption. Life just deals you the cards so to speak. It is ‘mystical Gnosticism’ of the cheap knid and destroys faith and clouds and distorts the nature of our relationship with God.

Frankly, there are a lot of comments on this discussion which seem very knowledgeable and very intellectually enlightening but the bottomline is it is all hypothesis and no one knows exactly what we are dealing with when we deal with occult, which Astrology is. Whether we can comfortably say that activity falls into these different things etc etc is nonsense. We don’t know. The Church, which has boundless experience in these matters says, don’t touch it, to do so is a sin.

Try googling Fr Gabriele Amorth and see what he has to say. He is the Exorcist for Rome, 60,000 exorcisms he has conducted. Written books etc. His advice - don’t touch it, don’t go anywhere near it. So unless your experience can match the Church’s knowledge to that degree in modern times you are all making grey what is clearly blkack and white.

 

[Holly3278]

Both I, my best friend (we are both practicing Catholics), and my favorite priest (who is very devout by the way) all read our horoscopes from time to time. I see nothing wrong with it.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Hi Marie.

According to Father John Trigilio (PhD) and Father Kenneth Brighenti (PhD)…[snip] the practice of Astrology (use of… belief in… Horoscopes) is a violation of the First Commandment… “I Am the Lord, thy God, thou shalt not have any strange gods before Me”.

I think this is a a very misleading and un-nuanced statement on their part. Certain uses of horoscopes and certain beliefs regarding them are clearly anathema as they deny free will and grace. How do they reconcile this thought with the practices of the Magi (probably Zoroastrian/Magian priest-astrologers) which lead them to the Christ child? Was their use of astrology wrong here? Was God using an evil instrument for a good end? Is it ever morally excusable for an evil means to be used to a good end? I don’t think so. The conclusion I draw, at least, is that astrology is a morally neutral “science” which can be put to good or bad ends.

“… the Church asserts that you can break the commandment in other ways, such as willingly and consciously being ignorant of what God has revealed in Sacred Scripture (the Bible) and Sacred Tradition (Chapter 3 of “Catholicism for Dummies”), as well as believing in and/or using astrology (horoscopes), numerology, and dianetics, which refers to the Church of Scientology.”

With statements like this, it’s difficult to take these priests seriously. For instance, numerology is in a similar boat to astrology and can be used or misused for various purposes. The basic premise of numerology is that numbers have a qualitative as well as a quantitative meaning. Is John the Divine wrong for using numerology so frequently in the apocalypse (the number 666, for instance, which denotes complete imperfection–the constant references to the number 12 denoting the tribes, the apostles, and the zodiac; that is, the totality of revelation: Old Testament, New Testament, and natural–the 7 stars, the 7 lampstands, the 4 living creatures)? Or is all of that just random metaphor and not the conscious employment of a meaningful system of references using number? Again, numerology used to determine destiny numbers and things like that is ludicrous. But numerology as a system applying quality to quantity is not so ridiculous. That these authors would lump such things in which Dianetics, which is the gospel of a cult, is just plain thoughtlessness and ignorance of one’s own tradition.

Their conclusion is correct–astrology can be dangerous and misleading. But their lack of nuance is suspect. And such a lack is, in itself, dangerous.

To be honest, so many of the posts here dealing with astrology are based in fear. But are we called to lives of fear or to lives of love? Astrology is either useful or useless–and whichever it is depends on one’s beliefs and intentions. If it is useless, what is there to fear? Leave it alone. It’s not necessary for salvation. If it is useful, the only thing to fear is one’s own weakness or frailty. So if the risk is assessed as too great, leave it alone! There are those who have used it and used it fruitfully (tarot is a similar enterprise–see theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar’s writing on “Meditations on the Tarot”), and there are many who stumble because of it. That’s all there is to it.

Re: demons and the zodiac, I think we should be clear about what we’re talking about. Are the demons influencing the movements of the planets? I don’t think so. Are the forces which astrology purports to discuss demonic? Doubtful–though that doesn’t mean they aren’t dangerous. Is astrology inspired by demons? Doubtful. Can interest in astrology open a way for demonic temptation or infestation depending on the inclination of the will? Certainly.

Re: generalized fear of the esoteric, I think we need to remember that esotericism divorced from context (that is, divorced from religion) is dangerous. It becomes self-referential and self-defeating (witness much New Age nonsense). However, there is such a thing as Christian esotericism. I would direct attention to Roman Catholic theologian Jean Borella’s critique of traditionalist Rene Guenon in his monumental work “Guenonian Esoterism and Christian Mystery”. Guenon claimed that Christianity was devoid of esotericism (and considered that Christianity’s greatest weakness). Borella corrects Guenon’s mistake and explains what esotericism really is in a Christian context. It’s an eye-opening book.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[glenaitken]

Mark,
It appears that we are as different as Plato to Aristotle in our viewpoints, but I did very much enjoy your refutations! I do not have much time to prepare an adaquate reponse, but like most philosophical diolouge, I think that we will most likely end up agreeing in the end.

1. symbols/signs- I enjoyed the insight of the difference. I had not quite considered that aspect of the linguistics, but you may be on to something there. The problem that I see is that when you boil the definitions down, a sign ends up pointing to a lower concept, and a symbol would point to a higher. I like the thought that a symbol would embody a transcendant concept, but the Eucharistic language you are using here is unfamiliar to me. I take it that you are a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church, and so the heavily Platonic language seems to fit. I think that in the Roman Church we have a more strick sense of the language of sacramentality and use it in a lose sense when discussing the universe. It seems to me that a symbol would give a truth a sort of conceptual existance in the one seeing the symbol, while it would not have a actual (subsisting) existance in and of its own right.
2. I agree that everything created by God has the meaning that you discuss in the light of the Curch Fathers. My point of contention is not that God make the heavens with meaning, but rather that the man-made “science” of astrology inscribes a Godless meaning to the heavens and is therefore intrinsically flawed.
   3.St. Paul’s Language- I am not saying that he didn’t know what he was talking about, but that his mystical experiance was beyond the scope of human words because it was a divine encounter. instead of having “close encounters of the third kind”, he had an intimate encounter of the ineffable kind. I do not hink he literally floated up and passed by venus.
3. Gnostic/christian languge- the experiances of each are distinctly different, but they use the same greek or roman tongue. the chriistian experiance is essentially different. I know that many things have been “baptized” over the years, but I do not think that astrology will ever be one of them unless it has proven natural causes, and even then it falls more to the realm of science than theology, and thus the Church will likely not say much at all.

Sorry for the tersness of the reply, but I am rushing off. I will read the rest of this thread later with some more thought. ]

Glen

 

[jbarba]

If you rely on the zodiac then you are not relying on God. Not a good idea.
Is 47:13 "You are wearied with your many counsels;
Let now the astrologers,
Those who prophesy by the stars,
Those who predict by the new moons,
Stand up and save you from what will come upon you.
Is 47:14 "Behold, they have become like stubble,
Fire burns them;
They cannot deliver themselves from the power of the flame;
There will be no coal to warm by
Nor a fire to sit before!

 

[benedicter]

Grace & Peace!

Astrology is either useful or useless–and whichever it is depends on one’s beliefs and intentions. If it is useless, what is there to fear? Leave it alone. It’s not necessary for salvation. If it is useful, the only thing to fear is one’s own weakness or frailty. So if the risk is assessed as too great, leave it alone! There are those who have used it and used it fruitfully (tarot is a similar enterprise–see theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar’s writing on “Meditations on the Tarot”), and there are many who stumble because of it. That’s all there is to it.

The inference here is that Hans Urs Von Balthasar somehow used or endorsed the use of the Tarot fruitfully. I can’t let this pass as it is inaccurate according to Stratford Caldecott. For full information go to www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2007/scaldecott_hubtarot_apr07.asp

Stratford Caldecott is a highly respected writer on Catholicism in the UK. In short, the author of ‘Meditations on the Tarot’ which Balthasar wrote the foreward for, was ‘anonymous’ but was in fact a man Tomberg who was a Catholic convert from occultism. The book is a refutation on occultism and warns about the occult. Obviously Balthasar endorsed this attitude.

Also I would encourage people to read a Provisional Report on the New Age from the Vatican council for Interreligious Dialogue called “Jesus Christ the Bearer of the Water of Life”.

We are cultural inheritors of a modern society divorced from its Christian roots and marinated in Eastern religions, some of it rubs off! We need to recognise this and head for a good bath - the Catechism and Confession. St Teresa of Avila would recommend a half hour of meditation on Christ each day as the perfect remedy to going down the wrong path. Try reading ‘Conversations With Christ’ and take up the challenge…life changes…strength, joy and faith move in. Let’s live it and stop talking about it.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

The inference here is that Hans Urs Von Balthasar somehow used or endorsed the use of the Tarot fruitfully. I can’t let this pass as it is inaccurate according to Stratford Caldecott. For full information go to www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2007/scaldecott_hubtarot_apr07.asp

Stratford Caldecott is a highly respected writer on Catholicism in the UK. In short, the author of ‘Meditations on the Tarot’ which Balthasar wrote the foreward for, was ‘anonymous’ but was in fact a man Tomberg who was a Catholic convert from occultism. The book is a refutation on occultism and warns about the occult. Obviously Balthasar endorsed this attitude.

I’ve read the Meditations and am a big fan of Mr. Caldecott. I think his attitude toward Western Esotericism is, from a Catholic perspective, right on–his magazine Second Spring is a fantastic resource for the development of a genuine Catholic mystagogy which does not shy away from engaging with the occult and the New Age head on. Mr. Caldecott also assumes the validity of the Platonic position which, to me, is what this whole conversation is about.

Let me be clearer. It was not my intention to write that von Balthasar used the tarot or endorsed its use, but his afterword to Tomberg’s work is illuminating in terms of his discussion of how such a thing can be used fruitfully and within a Christian context. He does not advocate fortune telling (nor do I! Read my posts!), he does not advocate divination (nor do I! Read my posts!), but he does recognize that the tarot, for instance, contains within it images within a particular system worthy of thought and meditation. And that, to me, suggests a fruitful use of the tarot.

I think, benedicter, that you’ve mis-interpreted my intentions here. I think that when I say there is a fruitful use to which the tarot can be put, you’re thinking that I’m saying that there is a Christian way to practice fortune telling. That’s not what I’m saying at all. I’m not even advocating for a general acceptance of astrology or of the tarot or of any other aspect of traditional Western esotericism. I am, however, making the point that if these things are used properly–that is, if all pretension to the frustrating of grace through divination is dropped and these things are seen as symbolic systems (ways of looking at a providentially ordered universe which is itself symbolic and sacramental)then they can yield some good fruit. The understanding, here–or at least my understanding here–is that they must first be divorced from the accretions of misuse which have ossifed around them and must be turned towards grace. This is how I understand the Magi’s use of astrology. This is how I understand Tomberg’s work and von Balthasar’s essay associated with it. I would urge you to read this excerpt from the essay (medtarot.freeserve.co.uk/balthasar.htm) of which this is a salient paragraph:
Here the important point is that although this penetration into the secret teachings of pagan and Jewish origin was pursued in the spirit of humanism, in the hope of bringing new life into rigidified Christian theology through collecting such scattered revelation and illumination, no one for a moment doubted that despite the disparities everything could be accommodated into the true Christian faith. That Pico [della Mirandola], in particular, did not aim at syncretism, he himself made quite clear: “I bear on my brow the name Jesus Christ and would die gladly for the faith in him. I am neither a magician nor a Jew, nor an Ishmaelite nor a heretic. It is Jesus whom I worship and his cross I bear upon my body.”[7]. The author of these Meditations’ could also have affirmed this oath of allegiance.
You wrote a description above of your understanding of astrology which is characterized by the use of the word “fate”. Rightly do you condemn this understanding as heresy! Never in my writing here have a endorsed such an understanding! This little word “fate”, this notion of the absence of free-will which amounts to a denial of grace, spoils the whole thing. But I do not see astrology as being necessarily dependent on any notion of fate. Again, it is a symbolic system informed by a particular worldview (mostly Platonic).

Your protestations are well-founded and well-grounded. I suspect, however, that we may be talking about two different things–or, at best, we may be talking about two different sides of the same coin. I look on these things as tools–who is in charge, the lawnmower or the gardener? The hammer or the carpenter? And who is it who has subjected all things (including all cosmic forces) to the will of the Father?

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[steve_n_theresa]

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?

Dear Mark,
I once had this same discussion with my best friend of 25 years. She firmly believed in the Zodiak and followed the horoscope in our weekly newspaper religiously.

I asked her If those things are true then the predictions should happen, even if you haven’t read them, right? She answered “right.”
So, If you refrain from reading them, and keep track of what happened each day, and each night I read it to you they should match, right?
She said “Yes” and agreed to thr experiment.

Each night she would say “Seeee!! it worked!!”

And at the end of the week, I told her I was reading from several old horoscopes from several months previous.

Those predictions are so vague, they can apply to almost any circumstance in a person’s day.
Theresa

 

[benedicter]

Grace & Peace!

*I think, benedicter, that you’ve mis-interpreted my intentions here. I think that when I say there is a fruitful use to which the tarot can be put, you’re thinking that I’m saying that there is a Christian way to practice fortune telling. That’s not what I’m saying at all. I’m not even advocating for a general acceptance of astrology or of the tarot or of any other aspect of traditional Western esotericism. I am, however, making the point that if these things are used properly–that is, if all pretension to the frustrating of grace through divination is dropped and these things are seen as symbolic systems (ways of looking at a providentially ordered universe which is itself symbolic and sacramental)then they can yield some good fruit.

Your protestations are well-founded and well-grounded. I suspect, however, that we may be talking about two different things–or, at best, we may be talking about two different sides of the same coin. I look on these things as tools–who is in charge, the lawnmower or the gardener? The hammer or the carpenter? And who is it who has subjected all things (including all cosmic forces) to the will of the Father?

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[benedicter]

Following on from my quotes.

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 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?

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.

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.

 

[vinessa]

Thanks for the back handed complement. I don’t think you really meant it??? I didn’t consider that I got any benefit of power I was expecting it to comfort me give me peace for the future. I am not a sure where the Pharisee thing comes in, did you assume it was about power for me as I am so quick to condemn it?

No, no, my comment wasn’t personal. You brought up Satan, and I agree he’s active in this world and is a real threat. And that he does his dirty work anywhere, including in the Church. In terms of the Pharisees, well, they definitely followed all the “rules”, but our Lord still condemned them. Why? Because their hearts were not genuinely surrendered to God. Jesus didn’t say I’ll save you if you obey all the rules. He said I’ll save you if you believe in me, and love God and each other.

The comment wasn’t personal, but I still think it’s a valid point. The people God loved most in the Bible were screwups! Peter was, David was, Jacob and Isaac definitely were, it goes on. And He condemned the Pharisees who crossed every T and dotted every I. So obedience to “rules” is not what He wants from us.

 

[benedicter]

In terms of the Pharisees, well, they definitely followed all the “rules”, but our Lord still condemned them. Why? Because their hearts were not genuinely surrendered to God. Jesus didn’t say I’ll save you if you obey all the rules. He said I’ll save you if you believe in me, and love God and each other.

The people God loved most in the Bible were screwups! And He condemned the Pharisees who crossed every T and dotted every I. So obedience to “rules” is not what He wants from us.

Thanks for the clarification that’s good. You are perfectly right, God loves screwups. You can put me in that basket, certainly God loves us all.

I think you raise a point which is often heard. That of Pharisees obeying all the ‘rules’, Jesus condemning them for that and supporting those outside the ‘rules’. I feel myself, that interpretation is too simplistic. Historically, I don’t think anyone would disagree that Jesus was a faithful Jew. He was a faithful Jew, what he saw in some of the Pharisees was hypocrisy. That is saying one thing and doing another.

I believe that one of the hardest things to come to terms with when becoming a Catholic is the concept of not separating Jesus from His Church. The Church is the mystical Body of Christ. So effectively one cannot be in disobedience with the Church and faithful to Jesus. So in that regard yes Jesus wants obedience to the Church and what it teaches ‘the rules’. Even over and above an individual conscience. If the individual conscience disagrees with the Church, the Church says that the individual must seek with all their heart to inform their conscience and seek the Truth of the Church’s teaching. This flies in the face of all we are taught by society today.

So it can be very hard, but obedience to the Church in humility and faith is what Jesus loves. Reading the lives of the Saints will show you time and time again this Grace being worked out in their lives, and many of them had difficulty with local Bishops etc. But not doctrine or dogma.

I would have rejected this concept years ago but now it is very liberating. So I guess coming back to the original issue of alternative spiritualities not acceptable to the Churches teaching, we simply give them up, confess from the heart and resolve never to play with these again. As I said it is not about condemnation, rather humility to the truth of scripture and the Church over and above our preferences or rationalisations. Faith is higher than reason.

I guess I am Catholic because its true and because its true I accept the authority of the Church. Now if I say that and live my life in wilful opposition to that (rather than failing through weakness and repenting) you can call me a Pharisee and Jesus can condemn me. Perhaps Catholics that say they are Catholics, teach and preach as Catholics against the Church are the Pharisees.

Stay with the RCIA, if you can come to grips with Jesus AND His Church you won’t look back.