CathInfo.com

I appreciate your thoughtful response.

Yes, I suppose we can see the attributes that God has given deer, or any other animal, and see how it can apply to our life. But ultimately, it is God himself (the Holy Trinity) who is the best teacher, IMO. We can also follow the lives of the saints, and see how they gave themselves up to God. It wasn't easy for many of them.

No, I don't see any spiritual meaning in animals, though I do admire some of them. And it's good to consider the animals that are mentioned in Scripture, but only in relation to the context that they are used in scripture. God has been quite specific in how He has depicted animals in Scripture. Nature was created by God. Shouldn't we consider looking to Him who was/is the creator, rather than look for meaning in the created? Just my opinion.

Okay then we just disagree, I do see spiritual meaning in animals and every created thing. You don't. And that's perfectly fine. But back to the thread title surely you recognize this is not at all "occult" or "satanic" it's just a more medieval cosmology?

I've seen this sentiment echoed a few times in this thread of "If there's the Bible and Tradition, why spend any time on all this? Are they bored and itching for novelty" And I don't know I see it as kind of convoluted. As the famous phrase goes "It's not an either/or, it's a both/and".

Can not a pious Catholic read both the Bible, Kempis, Shakespeare and the Book of Nature without "being bored of God", rather, seeing God present in all of it and talking with Him about it?

Also "shouldn't we consider looking to Him who was/is the creator, rather than look for meaning in the created? Just my opinion.", then why have an elaborate liturgy that engages all senses? Because God wants us to use created things, we are created beings. IMHO "Reading" a horse is not worshipping a horse, it's reading the "Horse Letter" written by God to us.

The main problem with this sort of thing is where to draw the line. Much like the wisdom we get from the Orientals. Take medicine, for instance. There's obvious some truth in Chinese medicine, acupunture and reflexology, but it is hard to know where the true wisdom stops and the dragon stuff begins.

We could say the same about Newton. He was a great physicist, but he was also a kind of warlock.

William Blake was a great poet, but his art was full of occultist stuff. It's all mixed up.

This highlights that "occult" is a very flimsy label IMO. Evola committed many errors, so did Hesiod, Pyrrho, Voltaire, Thomas Jefferson, Hume, Locke, what makes Evola's errors especially "occult" compared to them? That they get sold in new age stores? That they have a spooky vibe?