Sacrament Renews All Covenants? Anyone ever hear this?

[3DOP]

23 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Easy to do.

Ritual magic is like computer programming. Make an error in the code, and it may not compile, but even if it does compile it might produce a completely contrary result. One of my favorite SF/Fantasy mashups was the Wizardry series by Rick Cook. It envisions a universe where magic was accomplished by incantations properly recited along with certain hand and arm motions. Make a mistake and instead of heating up your food you might turn yourself into a gibbon. Silicon Valley computer geek Wiz Zumwalt gets "summoned" against his will to this world of magic, and ends up finding a way to revolutionize magic through the use of computer-style algorithms. In his first attempt to demonstrate, or "run" a magic program to elevate an object he makes an error in the incantation and manages instead to summon a whirlwind that destroys a number of trees. Once he figures out how to do things correctly, he is able to take down the Dark League in one day, and in the process he rescues his kidnapped girlfriend from torture and certain death. It's quite a read! But the point in ritual magic is that it is the words, gestures, and sometimes the clothing that hold the power. All else is irrelevant.

On the other hand, religious ordinances are symbolic actions signifying obedience to divine principles and commandments. In themselves they are meaningless actions. If you are baptized without faith in Jesus Christ and repentance all you achieve is getting wet. But with faith and repentance you make yourself eligible for forgiveness of your sins. The baptism itself does nothing without the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and this is not dispensed like a vending machine (because it's not ritual magic). The same applies for all ordinances. Even blessings that do cause physical results, such as a blessing of healing. When Jesus healed the sick, for example, he was not performing magic. No incantations, no complex hand motions. "Pick up your bed and walk." "Be clean!" The woman with the issue of blood simply touched him with faith and was healed instantly. In the feeding of the 5,000 he simply took the five loaves and the two fish and looking up to heaven, gave thanks and broke them. As for the Apostles, in Acts the lame man asking for alms at the gate of the temple is simply told: "Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk." After Saul of Tarsus is struck blind in the aftermath of his vision of Christ, the Lord sends Ananias to him to restore his sight. He says "Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost." And bang he can see again.

This is not ritual magic; this is power, stemming both from faith and from true authority. 

And every ordinance performed by priesthood power must be validated by the Holy Spirit of Promise -- not for whether the baptizee went all the way under, not for whether every word of the sealing ordinance was pronounced correctly, but for whether the person involved is held worthy by God of the blessings in question. We hew to the rules of how these ordinances are performed, not because of ritual magic, but because if we get all loosey goodsey about how they're done, eventually we're going to get highly complex and involved rituals that go way past the original intent of the ordinance. If you want to see something that rather resembles ritual magic, read how baptisms are conducted in the Catholic Church. Is this how John the Baptist, or the Apostle Paul did it? Is this the ordinance that Paul delivered to the Corinthian saints? No, but this is what happens when the original intent of the ordinance is forgotten, and is enhanced with more and more ritual, until it becomes almost impossible for a lay priesthood to perform, and leads to a professional clergy that intentionally violates the law given to Adam and Eve to multiply and replenish the earth. Or, at least, it leads to a professional clergy.

If the ordinances were ritual magic, all ordinances would have to be spoken in the the same language, the divine language (whatever that is). So when Paul wrote "Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you," did he mean that the baptismal ordinance has to be pronounced in Koine Greek to be effective? 

This may be part of the reason many Catholics were scandalized that Mass was no longer celebrated in Latin. Do those who prefer Latin feel that the magic or divine language is what made it effective? Probably not. It's probably just that Latin sounds more impressive and celebratory.

I find it strange to be arguing about this with a Latter-day Saint. 

Oh, and you might find video this amusing. It's a scene from the UK's "Yes, Prime Minister" series where the Prime Minister is discussing whom to appoint to a bishopric in the Church of England. Of course, the Monarch is technically the one who makes the appointments, but only upon the advice of the government. 

 

My fellow Washingtonian, right? Hi Stargazer! You seem to be enjoying exile in the U.K. Good for you. My wife and I avidly watch this program out of your current home country, Escape to the Country. Maybe you have seen it? It makes your "exile" seem possibly quite tolerable. In contrast to what appears on the show as what could be an idyllic exile, I am happily homesick here as an exile in Kansas, living in in a new built house that won't last a hundred years. (Happy in God's apparent will, and missing an Evergreen State that I never quite appreciated for more than sixty years). I am amazed at how the Brits of old made houses that are still lovely and livable centuries ago. I hope you have one of those with a beautiful garden! If you've told us where you live I missed it. I hope you are not in a London slum, but God's will be done, right? 

So anyway, I like your posts and by extension, you. I truly hope all good things for you in your new life. You should believe that after I critique your long post which included some apparent misunderstandings about Catholic teaching and ritual. In following posts, I intend to use a format that will not notify you that I have responded to this original prompting to my participation here. In contrast with your occasional uninformed ideas about my faith, there are two reasons why I enjoy you here. The first and most important is that I firmly believe that you mean well. The second reason is for much shared cultural appreciation. Thus, Yes, Prime Minister, will not be included in my hopefully charitable critique. I am thinking that even if I can only be charitably wrong, it will still be a win for my side!

God bless you and yours, I hope to be back soon.

Rory 

 

Edited yesterday at 01:43 PM by 3DOP

[3DOP]

Stargazer

"If you want to see something that rather resembles ritual magic, read how baptisms are conducted in the Catholic Church."

3DOP

I note that you use the expression, "rather resembles ritual magic". You didn't accuse our baptisms of actually being magic. Good. One reason for analyzing this statement is that even in the Roman rite, this form of baptism is used only in a few traditional communities that have permission from the Holy See to use the 1962 Missal. The Church has always recognized that her rituals tend to become repetitive and ever-growing in various ways and places. There is an expression which has become somewhat popular among Catholics who find themselves exasperated, mainly with private devotions that seem to be ever growing in length, but also with the public liturgy. It is sometimes called "piety sprawl".

I will give just one example out of many. When the 1962 Missal came into use, it deliberately trimmed one of two prayers we call the Confiteor, that existed from a reform of the Mass promulgated by Pius XII in 1955. So what happened? Apparently nothing. I have been to probably a thousand Masses supposedly celebrated according to the 1962 MIssal. I have never been to an old Mass with one Confiteor. Two are so unnecessary. All it does is extend the length of a Mass that is already repeating every reading from the Latin, and then again in the vernacular. Finally, the 1970 reform of St. Paul VI, with the approval of 99% of the bishops at Vatican II, succeeded in reducing the Confiteor from two to one, while trimming the number of intercessions from individual saints. The Mass is also made shorter by only allowing one reading of the same text. I really don't know how the Church ever decided to read the same exact readings twice, once in Latin, and again the vernacular. Piety sprawl? 

So yes, one can make an argument against the way baptisms were conducted in the Catholic Church. But that has not been the norm since 1970. I have not been to a baptism in the New Rite for two decades. But I understand it is significantly shorter today. Some dislike the New Rite. Most don't care. Some don't like the Old Rite. The Church is a rich and diverse Body that includes all types. Even in our current age of communication, a church composed of one and a half billion baptized souls is difficult to micromanage. The pope and his bishops, I think wisely, often allow variations to the official set words and gestures (rubrics) of the liturgies without exercising their disciplinary authority. Why aren't the authorities more strict? It doesn't change the essential efficacy of the sacrament. 

The point above is that all the breathings, saliva, salt, and any other odd gesture are completely unnecessary to a valid baptism. They might "rather resemble ritual magic", but  mistakes or disobedience does not annul the sacrament. It is not to be applauded, but many words and gestures can be added or left out at the whim or ineptitude of the minister. For that reason, it seems like the Old Rite of baptism should not be equated with the strictness which is commonly understood as necessary to ritual magic.   

Stargazer, you rightly avoided saying that our older baptisms were actually ritual magic. Those who don't understand it might read that description you linked and find it bizarre or yucky. I am considering explaining my theory about why the Church would ever have approved it originally. When understood properly, it beautifully symbolizes some very important Catholic beliefs.     

    

Edited 23 hours ago by 3DOP

[The Nehor]

On 10/8/2026 at 9:15 AM, Stargazer said:

Easy to do.

Ritual magic is like computer programming. Make an error in the code, and it may not compile, but even if it does compile it might produce a completely contrary result. One of my favorite SF/Fantasy mashups was the Wizardry series by Rick Cook. It envisions a universe where magic was accomplished by incantations properly recited along with certain hand and arm motions. Make a mistake and instead of heating up your food you might turn yourself into a gibbon. Silicon Valley computer geek Wiz Zumwalt gets "summoned" against his will to this world of magic, and ends up finding a way to revolutionize magic through the use of computer-style algorithms. In his first attempt to demonstrate, or "run" a magic program to elevate an object he makes an error in the incantation and manages instead to summon a whirlwind that destroys a number of trees. Once he figures out how to do things correctly, he is able to take down the Dark League in one day, and in the process he rescues his kidnapped girlfriend from torture and certain death. It's quite a read! But the point in ritual magic is that it is the words, gestures, and sometimes the clothing that hold the power. All else is irrelevant.

No, that is how magic works in some fiction. It is not how ritual magic was supposed to work historically and even that varied from culture to culture.

On 10/8/2026 at 9:15 AM, Stargazer said:

On the other hand, religious ordinances are symbolic actions signifying obedience to divine principles and commandments. In themselves they are meaningless actions. If you are baptized without faith in Jesus Christ and repentance all you achieve is getting wet. But with faith and repentance you make yourself eligible for forgiveness of your sins. The baptism itself does nothing without the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and this is not dispensed like a vending machine (because it's not ritual magic). The same applies for all ordinances. Even blessings that do cause physical results, such as a blessing of healing. When Jesus healed the sick, for example, he was not performing magic. No incantations, no complex hand motions. "Pick up your bed and walk." "Be clean!" The woman with the issue of blood simply touched him with faith and was healed instantly. In the feeding of the 5,000 he simply took the five loaves and the two fish and looking up to heaven, gave thanks and broke them. As for the Apostles, in Acts the lame man asking for alms at the gate of the temple is simply told: "Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk." After Saul of Tarsus is struck blind in the aftermath of his vision of Christ, the Lord sends Ananias to him to restore his sight. He says "Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost." And bang he can see again.

A lot of Jewish and Christian ritual magic involved being morally pure and upright before God and not being in that condition meant that it wouldn’t work or (in extreme cases) it would drive you insane or even kill you. Being contingent on obeidence is not unique to ‘approved’ religious ordinances.

On 10/8/2026 at 9:15 AM, Stargazer said:

This is not ritual magic; this is power, stemming both from faith and from true authority. 

And every ordinance performed by priesthood power must be validated by the Holy Spirit of Promise -- not for whether the baptizee went all the way under, not for whether every word of the sealing ordinance was pronounced correctly, but for whether the person involved is held worthy by God of the blessings in question. We hew to the rules of how these ordinances are performed, not because of ritual magic, but because if we get all loosey goodsey about how they're done, eventually we're going to get highly complex and involved rituals that go way past the original intent of the ordinance. If you want to see something that rather resembles ritual magic, read how baptisms are conducted in the Catholic Church. Is this how John the Baptist, or the Apostle Paul did it? Is this the ordinance that Paul delivered to the Corinthian saints? No, but this is what happens when the original intent of the ordinance is forgotten, and is enhanced with more and more ritual, until it becomes almost impossible for a lay priesthood to perform, and leads to a professional clergy that intentionally violates the law given to Adam and Eve to multiply and replenish the earth. Or, at least, it leads to a professional clergy.

I don’t believe that the reason clergy was professionalized was due to the complexity of ordinances. Even if it was the whole of the Torah suggests that complex ritual ordinances are not something God despises. Our temple ordinances are not exactly simple and quick.

On 10/8/2026 at 9:15 AM, Stargazer said:

If the ordinances were ritual magic, all ordinances would have to be spoken in the the same language, the divine language (whatever that is). So when Paul wrote "Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you," did he mean that the baptismal ordinance has to be pronounced in Koine Greek to be effective? 

Not all forms of ritual magic require some perfect language. This was a thing in Jewish magical practice for a while especially when they were convinced the Hebrew language was divine and many believed it was a key to understanding how God created everything.

On 10/8/2026 at 9:15 AM, Stargazer said:

This may be part of the reason many Catholics were scandalized that Mass was no longer celebrated in Latin. Do those who prefer Latin feel that the magic or divine language is what made it effective? Probably not. It's probably just that Latin sounds more impressive and celebratory.

I think it is more a resistance to change. People generally don’t like change.

On 10/8/2026 at 9:15 AM, Stargazer said:

I find it strange to be arguing about this with a Latter-day Saint.

I’m a pretty bad Latter-Day Saint by most standards at this point.

 

As I said Ritual magic is often much more involved than the . If you like horror movies the movie “Dark Song” is about two people doing an extended Abramelin ritual, a Kabbalistic magic meant to summon your guardian angel to grant a request. It is reportedly very dangerous…hence why it is a horror movie.

Another form of magic or possibly a religious rite that has strange parallels to some LDS rites is the practice of Jewish Merkabah mysticism. Based on Ezekiel’s chariot throne visions it is an attempt to descend and reach the throne of God. You have to pass a bunch of guardian angels and these angels are not the loving kind. They are the “kill all humans” kind. It requires all kinds of ritual purifications and learning secret signals and passwords you have to use to get there. If you fail you might be expelled, might be driven insane, or might die. Even if you succeed you might be wounded. If you succeed you approach the throne and can measure the form of God…possibly inspired by how Ezekiel had exact measurements of things in his writings and the Book of Revelation does the same thing with its space station sized city of New Jerusalem.

Some scholars have pointed out that Paul’s being caught up to the third heaven thing sounds a bit like a Merkabah trek through heaven. This could mean the thorn in his side might even refer to being metaphysically wounded by a guardian angel. You were also not supposed to share Merkabah experiences with non-initiates which might explain why Paul was so cagey about relating the experience. He starts out talking in the third person and then admits it was him and he seems to have only done so to prove his legitimacy. Earlier in the letter we read of “super apostles” coming after Paul and teaching some other stuff. Did Paul break his silence in order to hold on to the congregation? We know Paul had an ecstatic experience in the Book of Acts that led to a lot more Gentile proselyting. Was that the same experience?

So is Merkabah a religious rite? A magical ritual? Something in between?

Edited 20 hours ago by The Nehor