Satan and Suns

Actually I disagree with your interpretation on her version of invoking. I've spoken to her about this a couple of times for clarification . I thought the invocation vs. Evocation subject might come up eventually so I have her permission to quote the following from her book The Complete Book of Demonolatry



.

I've recently learned that ceremonial and Goetic magicians use their own definitions of invoke and evoke. I was told that to Ceremonial Magicians, evoke is the external manifestations and invoke is the internal manifestation (which they also call possession , which is also strange but.its their lingo) .

It drives me nuts because that is not what those words mean according to the dictionary , but I totally respect the Ceremonial Magicians specialized definitions and their right to use them..........

It's just that Demonolators use the dictionary definitions for these same words- not the cms definition...

INVOCATION- THE ACT OF CALLING ON (A HIGHER POWER) FOR ASSISTANCE, SUPPORT OR INSPIRATION.

CM's say this is the internal, but by definition this would technically be external because the actual definition suggests a power outside of the self......

We do not evoke Demons under any circumstances

EVOCATION- the act of summoning (like you might a servant or subordinate) an entity (implied: against its will. Also implied : Demons are servants)

She then goes on to say :

Possessed - controlled (implied against ones will) by a spirit or other force.

CM's have often used the word inbfront of me to describe what Demonolators would call.channelling. Possession means the agician has no will to stop it and the wording of the definition implies the same.

We do, however, believe in channelling Demons there are methods to do this.

Channelling - the medium through which a spirit guide purportedly communicates with the physical world (this is with the person's consent because they have to physically open themselves up for.the experience.)

CM's don't seem to use this word.

So basically I believe its different definitions for the same words.

Wanda you have a good point. I have been a cerimonial style magician for over 15 years, and it does just seem to be a matter of vocabulary. Though with channeling I would define it as a total take over but a voluntary one. The possession I use is more what I would call a perfect possession or true Godform assumption, where the spirit and the person act together symbioticlly as one for the duration of the ritual. Again, it may just be a matter of definition and I really like your post. Thank you:)

Andreeje wrote:Wanda you have a good point. I have been a cerimonial style magician for over 15 years, and it does just seem to be a matter of vocabulary. Though with channeling I would define it as a total take over but a voluntary one. The possession I use is more what I would call a perfect possession or true Godform assumption, where the spirit and the person act together symbioticlly as one for the duration of the ritual. Again, it may just be a matter of definition and I really like your post. Thank you:)

thank you Andreeje
I was taught invocation/evocation with the same definition as you so if you read any of her books without seeing that little definition page in that book, its easy to misunderstand what she means. I'm not at the channelling /possession stage yet so I'd have probably been put off of a lot of ritual if I hadn't seen that page lol its probably only because I'm OCD with my studying I even noticed it hah

Yeah, I've only read a few of her books, so I am definitely not an expert on her practices, but I know quite a few people who swear by her teachings. I started with a ceremonial based Celtic order in my late teens and supplemented that with a Golden Dawn offshoot. Eventually went with the Temple of Set (years I will never get back ) I left them knowing I didn't care much for Michael Aquino or Don Webb, but really liked Stephen Flower's and hooked up with his Rune Guild for a short time. I still respect Flowers a lot, but the Nordic path just wasn't for me. Eventually found Koetting and Jason Newcomb. I worked through Koetting's books and the OAA and was, up until not to long ago, a student of Newcomb's (super nice guy, I talked him into watching Duck Dynasty:) Love that show). But the past year I have been working with Mark Alan Smith (another super nice guy, extreme patience even with me pestering him all the time). So that's where I come from with my definitions, like you pointed out, all ceremonial magick based. Just wanted to thank you again for pointing out your views and showing that we were pretty much talking about the same things:)

Has anyone ever read any books by Sorceress Cagliastro? She works with Demons and also blood magick. She wrote The Blood Sorcery Bible and some other books. If you do a search for her on amazon you can find all her books. A few months ago I bought some Demon Golems that someone had had bought from Miss Cagliastro. Even though They are lower level Demons the energy They give off is extremely intense! Here is the auction listing for the Demon Golems. Check it out and tell me what you think and those with open 3rd eyes maybe you can feel the energy as well. Here is the link: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Paranormal-Demo ... 7675.l2557" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Andreeje wrote:As for Connely, I give her a thumbs up as well, she has pushed the respectful workings with demons her whole career. I don't agree with her views on evocation though. Evocation can be used as a means to get to know an entity if used with respect; just as I also disagree with Koetting for preaching using demons as a continual means of physical gain. Connely works through invocation, which in the end is the goal just not in the intermingling of energies and communication, but invocation in its extreme forms is where the spirit temporarily inhabits your body and that is when the full bonding and learning takes place; much like Voudon practionioners and the Lwa. Evocation helps greatly for building up to this level of connection. And on this point I will have to disagree with Connely, otherwise her work is solid.

I agree.

I actually really love him, not for his rituals but for is research and perspective on things, he is a solid writer who really vets his stuff. Does he replace S Connolly? Hell no i see them as two different people with two different goals. For me I spend a ton of time researching religious anthropology and history so love his work for that

The Necrominon is really good.