I am interested in learning more about demonolgy. This is the study of hell and the demons and fallen angels who rule hell. It is really intesting to read some of the studies that were done during the middle ages and the renaissance. A lot of the demonology studies were done by monks and Roman Catholic Church officails. How in the heck did they come up with this stuff. How could they know by name which angels fell with Lucifer. My favorite piece of middle age information is that hells armies are divided by sixes. For instance hell has 666,000 battalions of demons. I find ****Edited****<va-gunnut> this fascinating.
I think it was C.S. Lewis that said there are two main mistakes that people make in regard to the devil.
One is to dismiss him as a myth, and the other is an unhealthy obsession with him.
Be careful out there.
Once you conjure up one or two of the higher ranking Generals, you can usually get a pretty detailed roster out of them since they, like Amway salesmen, are always eager to introduce you to their 'friends'...
As you mentioned, a good portion of this was cooked up by Roman Catholic monks.
That particular religion has an affinity for the mythology of everything that goes on.
For a religion supposed to be founded on faith they spend an awful lot of time trying
to put names and job assignments on every minutia of the operations of Heaven and Hell.
Was it for control of ancient congregations? Used to put fear in their hearts?
Was it to "prove" that they were the real Church? A Church with all the answers and
detailed theologies must be the right one huh? How else could they know all that stuff.
In my opinion it was the latter. This opinion is shared by lots of Roman Catholic
historians as well, since for so long the RC Church was a political as much as a
religious power in the world.
Some of the stories are very detailed. I am treading lightly here since this is the religion forum,
but the following is one example of the detail the Church put into these stories.
The Golgothan is a demon created from the excretory remains of those crucified on Golgotha,
which is now called Mount Calvary; the place of Jesus' crucifixion.
But remember even then that all of these things are purported to be creations of the Almighty.
Cardinal Manning points to the fact that both Plato and Xenophon use the form daimonion,
which Cicero rightly renders as divinum aliguid, "something divine".
From my point of view it appears to be a way to keep control over the peasants, which
is why you don't see the Church using the names and publishing details of this
particular doctrine any longer.
For the Roman Catholics, this one isn't bashing your religion, this one is purely historical in nature.
Nearly all ancient religions (ancient here meaning over 1000 years old) had some kind of
mythology attached to explain things to the extremely uneducated peasants. Remember
that for a large part of the Roman Catholic Church's history the mass was said in Latin, which
the peasant congregations were not even allowed by law to learn.
The Bible doesn't spend a lot of time talking about the nature of demons or their origin. Some say they are angels who fell with lucifer. Others say they are a creature that is distinctly seperate from fallen angels. I have heard some say they are the spirits of the "sons of God" who were on this earth fooling around with mortal women and who were destroyed in the Great Flood, leaving them as wandering spirits.
The truth is the Bible doesn't definatively say.
The Bible portrays demons as very real spiritual beings bent on evil, and seems to indicate that there are orders of rank up to regional authorities who can actually resist Angels and messengers of God. They manifest in many ways, from the overtly visible to the mild and suggestive, using whatever tactic seems to be most effective for them.
The Bible is also unclear about exactly how demonic posession works. Demonic influence is seen as quite common, even if full-blown Exorcist type demonic posession is not.
When a case of demon posession is mentioned, there is no struggle mentioned in the Bible. Jesus and the Apostles didn't seem to use anything but fasting and prayer to cast out demons. (No holy water, no chants, etc...)
Since I don't believe in demons, but do believe in evil, I'll only say this:
Those that study evil are studied by evil.
In the interests of keeping things civil here, I won't get into my opinions of previous "studies" and the mythology around demons and hell.
Why do you take every possible chance to slam the Catholic Church?
Let it go, anger and resentment is a sin.
Since you can't read, I'll explain it to you.
The Roman Catholic Church is the oldest Christian Church on the planet.
It also was the largest and most powerful political force on earth for many years.
Because of that power and wealth that came with it, the Church had the opportunity
to write most of Christian dogma.
So in a discussion of the history of Christianity, it would be damn near impossible
to talk about things that happened without involving the Roman Catholic Church.
In the particular case of deomonlogy, the Roman Catholic Church wrote volumes
upon volumes concerning just that.
In this particular case I even quoted Cardinal Manning in a positive way.
Sarge, you are the one that doesn't understand the relationship of the Roman Catholic
Church to Christianity and the world. You were probably born into being Catholic
and the only education on the matter you got from nuns or priests, those 2 groups
being notorious for not teaching everything. Your own Church prints volumes and volumes
for education of it's constituents.
You have said yourself in postings that you don't pay attention to most of what your Church
puts in writing and that you go mainly on what your local priest tells you.
You are uneducated on the subject therefore, and I'm not sure how you can argue
with me on this particular issue, or lots of the other ones we've had here.
You do the standard Catholic response. "I have not read of that or heard about
it on Sunday, so anyone saying things I don't know about must be making it up
in an attempt to make the Mother Church look bad".
There is nothing in the above post that paints the Roman Catholic Church in
any negative light whatsoever, it is purely historical stuff.
Again, you are welcome to counter ANY of the things I have made claim to in this
or any other thread. Be warned that 99% of the time I quote your own Church's
documents in these discussions, simply because your Church is so prolific in
publishing things. Even my thoughts on why the Catholic Church spent
so much time thinking on these things I learned from Catholic documents.
There have been many people inside the Church that have questioned these things
besides Luther. They remained loyal Catholics and had no intent to damage the Church,
merely ask why certain things were done in the past. Lots of them were realized to be
bad ideas and re-thought in Vatican II, which was probably a real good idea.
If you find ANYTHING in what I've written to be inaccurate, please post your findings.
You inaccuracy stems from the fact that you know the Catholic Church has a direct link to Jesus, yet you ignore that in favor of your own brand of christianity, which is fine. But then you go on to point out to short comings of the Catholic Church while ignoring your own. Plus since all christian faiths came AFTER the Catholic church (and orthodox of course) then those fellow Christian churches also share in their history.
ANd many, many, many of the Protestant religions had the exact same growing problems and abuses of power as the Catholic Church did.
But you do point that out now do you?
PS ANd there is a differance between saying I don't know it all and that I am un-educated about it. Since I am un-educated I am willing to be taught. Know it alls are not.
No, I suggested one goes to a priest when they want to learn about the church for direction, not for everything.
Well, since you know it all...............
Standard Catholic response? Have you met every single Catholic?
Would saying the standard BAC has a tendancy to be preachy be accurate also then?
Get off your high horse son, your church ain't perfect. ANd if it was it stopped being so they day you joined.
yes, and i wouldn't recommend it.
it's much less enjoyable than studying God.
YMMV, but i bet after a year or so of studying it you get rather bored with it.
WARNING: This Thread Has Been Hijacked. Sorry
I believe that the Roman Catholic Church has a direct link to Jesus. I also believe that there are other Protestant Churches that can make the same claim, since they had Roman Catholic Bishops that converted.
I will not believe the "divine authority" argument of the Pope so for me a Roman Catholic bishop has as direct line to Jesus as any Pope does. Since as a Protestant I do not believe in Divine Authority of the Pope, then any of the other disciples have as much direct connection to Christ as Paul did. This is called "apostolic" and is what is meant in the Nicene Creed when it says "One Holy, Catholic,and Apostiic" Church.
Holy - Easy enough to figure out
Catholic - means "universal", not Roman Catholic.
Apostolic - of or directly relating to the Apostles. So, any church that can claim direct lineage to
one of the 12 is an Apostolic Church.
At some point in history, around the time of the Inquisitions etc which you can read about sometime, the Church was the Universal Church but it's leadership made some decisions that Protestants believe
led the Roman church away from Christ. At the time of the Protestand Reformation, people that believed the same things, that the Pope ideals had been twisted to achieve political power, split from the church of Rome
to begin to try to undo some of those mistakes.
You believe in the Divine Authority of the Pope, and I do not.
Do not for a second however think that the church of Rome is the only church that can claim
Apostolic lineage to Christ, or that there are no other Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Churches
in the world.
These are probably the best known.
Methodist is a tenuuous "Apostolic" link but can be argued.
Baptist, well, I'm afraid I cant find that link at all, nor do most Baptists claim to be "Apostolic".
So we have the Roman Catholic Church
We have the Eastern Catholics, which really should be under Roman since they consider the Pope infallible as well.
We have Lutherans, which had a Roman Catholic Cardinal as one of it's first leaders
Same with the CoE, which had lots of Anglican spinoffs, including the Episcopal Church in America.
The National Cathedral in Washington DC is an Episcopal Church, and the majority of US
Presidents were Episcopalians. The original Bishop sent to the US by the CoE was ordained
by a former Roman Catholic Cardinal, therefore bestowing Apostolic lineage on that sect
as well. You will note that this Cardinal was a FORMER RC Cardinal and that he was NOT
excommunicated when he moved to the CoE. Interesting move that one, it almost
says that Rome was OK with what the Church of England did in some fashion, although
we know that's not true because of the bloody wars that followed. I've always wondered
why the Pope didn't excommunicate all those guys. But, that's beside the point.
So you very much misinterpret my thoughts towards the Roman Catholic Church. I believe many
of the teachings of that Church, and I recognize that a lot of today's Christian documents
were written by Roman Catholics and that has great historic significance.
I do NOT believe however that the Roman Catholic Church today has any authority whatsoever
to speak for or on the behalf of Christ. Certainly no belief that anything the Pope does is any more
"divine" than something say the Primate of the Episcopal Church in America, or the
Archbishop of Canterbury,the head of the CoE.
These are leaders of the worlds major Christian Churches. They each lead a group that differs
slightly from one another. In general they are in agreement on most things, but while Protestant
churches are in communion with one anther, the Roman Catholic Church holds out from that
and refuses to be so. That's fine. Given what that church beleives it's role to be I don't want
to be in communion with the Church of Rome anyway.
Only 2 things remain as seperators between Roman Catholics and Protestants. Only 2.
1) The supremacy of the Pope. Christ put Paul in charge of the 12, but Paul decided
that form that point on anyone he chose should be in charge. Protestants find
no biblical support for this.
2) Transubstantiation. Protestants do NOT believe in transsubstantiation, or
that as you take communion, the bread wine TRULY become human flesh and blood.
Not symbolic, not a "sign" of our remembrance, but pure cannibalism. Protestants
find no biblical support for this.
At Vatican II, these were listed as the ONLY outstanding reasons Catholics and Protestants
could not be in communion with each other. One of these is simply a difference of belief,
one of these would require Rome to admit it did not speak solely for Christ on Earth, and
that will never happen.
As for me being a know it all, in this case it appears I know more than others here,
or someone would have corrected me on anything I've said. I studied Catholicism
VERY closely for years as I tried to find my place in Christianity, but I read things
that led me to believe the RC Church was not the One True Church. How much
detail have you put into studying your own Church? There should be many
questions in your mind, even if you continue to believe in the infallibillity and Divine
Authority of the Pope. But like most Roman Catholics you just accept it all on faith.
Faith in Christ is a good thing, faith in what some guy in a red robe tells you you should
have faith in is another matter entirely.
I'm waiting for some good debate on the subject but all I get is
"I know you are but what am I".
As for other churches experiencing "growing pains" I doubt you'll be able to find any thing
like Rome's Inquisition, or Rome's treatment of the Jews, or any number of things.
You'll notice I didn't mention the child thing in this. Honestly, all churches have experienced
and will experience this same issue and, as big a deal as it is, pales in comparison to many
of the things the Church of Rome has done in the past, all in the name of God. Yes lots
of Churches have killed in the name of God, but none that boasts so loudly of being
the One True Church as the Church of Rome does.
So, you brag the loudest you can expect the most criticism. It's all self inflicted Sarge.
You are welcome. Rush's Test for Echo still stinks
I have never really studied it. When I first became a Christian I was into it but realised that I needed to see the spiritual warfare that was being fought in my life, and more importanly (to me) I needed to remember that I cannot be touched by the enemy without Gods approval. Since I trust God, I dont worry too much about the enemies attacks.
Where they got the names and such I have no idea and I suspect its mainly a Roman Catholic thing. I am not saying it like thats a bad thing, just not something I needed to concern myself with in my walk.
I am sure some here have better answers and I am sorry I couldnt offfer anything more. Basically thi is nothing more than a long winded tag. I would like to see some of the replies.
I've done some study long ago. I won't bother to try to look up passages, as I'm sure you can do that if you want. The story (not a parable) in the gospels of the poor beggar who ate the crumbs from the rich man's table is a good one to study. It shows a few things, such as:
> there is a great gulf between the lost dead and the children of God, separating them from each other
> there is no such thing as re-incarnation
> there is no communication from the dead to the living
> hell is eternal
Other passages talk of demons who are "bound". Some demons are bound presently, and some are not. Those that are bound will be released for a short time in the end of days, according to Revelation.
Demons have an order, like the military, of commanders and lesser soldiers. Demons have great power, much more than we would ever wish to know about, and we are only sheilded from their power by the Holy Spirit. Demons are very intellegent, as they have been here since the beginning. They have watched and worked as generation after generation of mankind has come and gone. They know a LOT.
Another good read would be the book of Job. This book shows that Satan is a real "person" or entity, and he has great power that is limited only by God.
Demons are nothing to screw around with. They should be respected for the power they possess, and it is not a good thing to dwell on thoughts of demons for too long. I've seen demonic evidence with my own eyes, and even now chills run up my spine at the remembering of it, and that was 20 years ago.
If you are a Child of God, you have nothing to fear, but you still need to be careful.
The Bible doesn't have much to say re: "demonology" per se, but it makes an interesting statement about those who engage in witchcraft, black magic and evil spirits. Consider:
Ga 5:19 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality,
20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions,
21 envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Witchcraft, sorcery, and the occult are just another form of fleshly living - like drunkenness, sexual sin and fighting / carousing.
Most of the terminology related to demonology that was "cooked up" by the Church actually stemmed from centuries of contact with demons through exorcisms conducted. For example, there are particular types of demons called "familiars," which are named as such because one possessed by such a demon would see a sort of apparition.
During an exorcism, a priest tries to force the demon to admit its/their name(s), just as Jesus forced the demons to admit their name in Mark 5:9, and that's how some demons are given names in demonology. In addition, there is private revelation (revelation that is not necessarily recognized by the Church), and this could account for some of the information that isn't present in the Bible (note that these private revelations are NOT official Church teaching.
In all, most of the detailed terminology in demonology is just speculation. I would suggest Malachi Martin's Hostage to the Devil, which has much information on demonic possession and includes the Church's rite of exorcism in the appendix.
It's in the Rituale Romanum.
Do a search for exorcism here, it's a very long text page but it has the
complete ritual for this, among other things.
Rituale Romanum Part I
Rituale Romanum II
Note that Baptism is considered an exorcism rite, as well as the blessing of the baptismal
font and Holy Water. That only makes sense if you are making Holy Water.
And it only makes sense to call Baptism an exorcism since you are removing
the stain of Original Sin.
Also interesting to note was the only change made to the exorcism ritual this century.
Before, the rite was for anyone acting oddly pretty much, but now the Church has
recognized mental illness as a genuine medical condition and excluded those
diagnosed with such from being exorcised.
The exoricism of demons is in Part II