Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Art and Literature for Catholics => Topic started by: HolyAngels on September 10, 2022, 01:28:05 PM
-
I was looking for videos one evening and come across a Fr Ripperger one on sacramentals. So I began watching others and he's an excellent catechist imo.
I bought his book Deliverance Prayers For The Laity and begin praying the Auxilium Christian prayers. Soon after I understood why he strongly suggested one speak with a priest before praying the prayers. Demons don't like them.
I also got a copy of his latest book Dominion. It far exceeds the other books I've read on angels, demons, and spiritual warfare.
Anyhow I'm glad I found him online. As far as the details of what goes on in the room when he performs a solemn exorcism, I'm not intrigued by all of that. Everything else he presents is solid imo.
What are the general thoughts here about Fr Ripperger ? I realize he's indult but he certainly is orthodox.
-
I like him too, he goes straight to the point .
He's the reason I got my local trad priest to make epiphany exorcism holy water.. I bless my home with it quite often and have given some to my family - it's powerful holy water.
-
Fr Ripperger was ordained in the Novus Ordo sect ( FSSP?) so his ordination might be considered doubtful. In the past he called the neo-SSPX and all other independent trad groups schismatic.
He hasn't spoken much about that lately ( understandably). He seems quite proficient in his ministry of exorcism but I am surprised he is so visible online with his profession. Usually exorcists are less public about it. He does have a great prayer website called Auxilium Christianorum that I participated in as a member of the laity. I'm not so sure about him now.
-
I like him too, he goes straight to the point .
He's the reason I got my local trad priest to make epiphany exorcism holy water.. I bless my home with it quite often and have given some to my family - it's powerful holy water.
Same here. I marked my doorways with the epiphany chalk as well.
-
He's a good Thomist, I learned a lot from his videos. And he's given great conferences on the demonic and exorcism.
I doubt his Orders, and I've really become skeptical about just how much he shares regarding the demonic to the point that it seems like he's divining information from them to share with the public. There's also the weird popularity of him, as exorcists are typically out of the public eye because it paints a target on their back for demons.
-
Fr Ripperger was ordained in the Novus Ordo sect ( FSSP?) so his ordination might be considered doubtful. In the past he called the neo-SSPX and all other independent trad groups schismatic.
He hasn't spoken much about that lately ( understandably). He seems quite proficient in his ministry of exorcism but I am surprised he is so visible online with his profession. Usually exorcists are less public about it. He does have a great prayer website called Auxilium Christianorum that I participated in as a member of the laity. I'm not so sure about him now.
Did you experience any sort of demonic retaliation after praying the Auxilium Christianorum prayers. I did 3 times not far apart but they subsided. Then I started praying Servite rosary along with the other daily prayers as required by the Society of the Most Sorrowful Mother, the Doloran Fathers aFr Ripperger is part of. Now I've had them come at me again.
The worst was one night I was reaching for my copy of Deliverance Prayers For The Laity and I envisioned the most repulsive image of a demon I've ever seen in a painting or otherwise. It didn't frighten me but I immediately made the sign of the cross and it disappeared. Then a second one appeared (in my mind) as soon as I found the page to begin that day's prayers. I got up and made the sign of the cross with some holy water and then prayed to St Michael prayer.
Other than that time they try to shake me in dreams. Every time it's woken me and I was calmed immediately by looking at the crucifix. The instances are not scaring me but I never had anything of the sort happen until I started praying these prayers. I'm 65 yo. They are just enough to get my attention.
Anyhow, his book Dominion has allowed me to figure out what type of demonic influence drives my habitual sins. In my case it's demonic oppression.
I prefer to read Catholic books written no later than around 1910 or so but in Fr Ripperger's case his catechesis is so solid I'm resisting " tossing the baby with the bathwater". I can imagine him subbing for a priest at an indy or resistance chapel and if no one in the pews recognized him they would never know he was an indult priest.
I do get some comments I've read about him being a bit too public. Understandable. I just like his style of catechesis.
-
He's a good Thomist, I learned a lot from his videos. And he's given great conferences on the demonic and exorcism.
I doubt his Orders, and I've really become skeptical about just how much he shares regarding the demonic to the point that it seems like he's divining information from them to share with the public. There's also the weird popularity of him, as exorcists are typically out of the public eye because it paints a target on their back for demons.
As far as his Orders, it is indeed something of concern. I don't receive sacramental from him though. And yes he does have a sort of fan club following among NO Catholics. That popularity maybe because the mainstream Catholic aren't used to hearing any catechesis from the pulpit. When they encounter something more; catechesis in the actual practice of Catholicism, they embrace it if they are of fairly strong faith.
The NO's liturgical problems aside, the sermons are nearly always lame and devoid of catechesis.
-
Father Ripperger has been helpful to me in understanding spiritual warfare. I don't listen to any info about exorcisms -- just not that interesting to me. For those who complain that he says the NO Mass, I am not attending his Mass -- I am listening to him speak on how to grow spiritually.
-
Father Ripperger has been helpful to me in understanding spiritual warfare. I don't listen to any info about exorcisms -- just not that interesting to me. For those who complain that he says the NO Mass, I am not attending his Mass -- I am listening to him speak on how to grow spiritually.
He recommends Ways of Mental Prayer by Dom Vitalis Lehodey
https://tanbooks.com/products/books/discounts-sales/5-books/the-ways-of-mental-prayer/
There are free PDF files of it as well. It's helped my pray life immensely.
-
He would 't help us when we thought a family member need an exorcism. He sent us through the local NO channels.
-
He's a good Thomist, I learned a lot from his videos. And he's given great conferences on the demonic and exorcism.
I doubt his Orders, and I've really become skeptical about just how much he shares regarding the demonic to the point that it seems like he's divining information from them to share with the public. There's also the weird popularity of him, as exorcists are typically out of the public eye because it paints a target on their back for demons.
Traditionally the Church treated exorcisms as a confidential matter not in order to protect the exorcist from demons (since the demons already know who is doing the exorcisms in any parish anyway), but to avoid the type of popular sensationalism and superstition that Ripperger appeals to in order to get attention. A lot of people in the conservative wing of the new church are highly superstitious and think demons cause every natural event that is a little weird, and think everyone is possessed by demons (I think they have invented the word "oppressed" by demons now, to avoid that accusation I just mentioned). So when people like this hear a priest (invalidly ordained) going on and on about demons all the time and how many people are possessed, they eat it with a big spoon.
Traditionally, the Church is always extremely slow to say anyone is possessed by the devil (and I'm not aware of those terms "demonic obsession" or "demonic oppression" being used before Vatican 2, I don't think they're traditional). In fact, the very ceremony of exorcism in the Roman Ritual, a liturgical book, says as much, and says that priests should be very reluctant to believe anyone possessed, and not unless they can either speak many words in a foreign language, reveal hidden or secret information unknown to them, or do things physically impossible. And it implies people should do more than one of those things, or more than once. Ever hear Ripperger tell people this?
The Catholic idea is to assign natural causes to things. Thus, if you see a devil in your imagination as you pick up a book about devils, that is probably your imagination. If have a nightmare, that is your imagination. That is how people should think, and that is what is taught by the true Catholic mystics and teachers of the spiritual life.
-
Traditionally the Church treated exorcisms as a confidential matter not in order to protect the exorcist from demons (since the demons already know who is doing the exorcisms in any parish anyway), but to avoid the type of popular sensationalism and superstition that Ripperger appeals to in order to get attention. A lot of people in the conservative wing of the new church are highly superstitious and think demons cause every natural event that is a little weird, and think everyone is possessed by demons (I think they have invented the word "oppressed" by demons now, to avoid that accusation I just mentioned). So when people like this hear a priest (invalidly ordained) going on and on about demons all the time and how many people are possessed, they eat it with a big spoon.
Traditionally, the Church is always extremely slow to say anyone is possessed by the devil (and I'm not aware of those terms "demonic obsession" or "demonic oppression" being used before Vatican 2, I don't think they're traditional). In fact, the very ceremony of exorcism in the Roman Ritual, a liturgical book, says as much, and says that priests should be very reluctant to believe anyone possessed, and not unless they can either speak many words in a foreign language, reveal hidden or secret information unknown to them, or do things physically impossible. And it implies people should do more than one of those things, or more than once. Ever hear Ripperger tell people this?
The Catholic idea is to assign natural causes to things. Thus, if you see a devil in your imagination as you pick up a book about devils, that is probably your imagination. If have a nightmare, that is your imagination. That is how people should think, and that is what is taught by the true Catholic mystics and teachers of the spiritual life.
Well stated. I agree. I will have to look into the usage of "oppression/obsession" to verify that, as it is of definite interest.
Furthermore, the claim of superstition appears to be true. As I recall Ripperger himself encouraging people to superstitiously utilize brown scapulars, referring to a tale about a house being saved from fire by hanging a scapular on the door know. Yet I digress...superstition takes the place of faith if you do not have supernatural faith, as I suspect many "fans" of Ripperger lack.
-
He recommends Ways of Mental Prayer by Dom Vitalis Lehodey
https://tanbooks.com/products/books/discounts-sales/5-books/the-ways-of-mental-prayer/
There are free PDF files of it as well. It's helped my pray life immensely.
Awesome book. Best book on prayer and it's interconnectedness with spiritual advancement I've ever read. It shows how advancement in the spiritual life or sanctity and advancement in your prayer life coincide, how they're inseparable. Also explains to the reader how to practice mental prayer in different ways at different stages and how to recognize God working in the soul. What is mental prayer? How do you know when to simplify your mental prayer? How does meditation become contemplation? What is God doing? What do you do? How and why is advancing in the spiritual life of union with Christ and advancing in prayer inseparable or interdependent? This book explains all this and more in a lot of detail especially drawing from the writings of St. John if the Cross and St. Theresa of Avila. Book is 3 or 4 hundred pages. Very exhaustive. Worth it.
-
Obsession is indeed a traditional form of diabolical influence discussed in spiritual theology.
The traditional divisions of diabolical influence in the manuals are: 1) temptations, 2) obsession (interior or exterior), and 3) possession.
Fr. Antonio Royo Marin, OP summarizes the traditional theology well in his manual Teologia de la Perfeccion Cristiana.
Mgr. Ribet discussed these three divisions more extensively in his 1883 work La mystique divine. Fr. Pierre Thyrée, SJ was the classic author of demonology, witchcraft and occult extraordinary phenomena, especially his De daemoniacis, 1594.
The Catholic Encyclopedia article is good: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12315a.htm
St. Thomas discusses diabolical influence generally in various places, e.g. ST Ia, q. 114; In II Sent., dist. 8, q. 1. There are also many other saints who discuss these matters with more or less depth.
The 1917 Code was absolutely clear that laity and even unauthorized clergy were forbidden to attempt an exorcism (c. 1151-53).
There is increasing discussion of "generational spirits" among some exorcists or people interested in this topic. I've never spent time looking into it, and it doesn't seem to be mentioned in the traditional manuals as far as I know (but I don't know much at all in this topic). But what I mentioned above is clearly laid out in the traditional sources.
-
IMO, some of his online sermons are pretty good. As for “following” him, if you mean in the online sense, I don’t follow anyone I do not personally know in real life. Whether others make themselves fans of a priest or not is of little concern to me. Jesus had crowds of followers on Palm Sunday and was cancelled immediately thereafter. The same can happen to Fr. Ripperger.
I’d be cautious about getting overly involved in his exorcism prayers. He wrote and adapted most of them. I think it’s not good for lay people to be praying other than short spiritual warfare prayers as needed under demonic temptation, or as guided by one’s spiritual advisor. (One amateur exorcist in the resistance movement is enough!)
-
Traditionally the Church treated exorcisms as a confidential matter not in order to protect the exorcist from demons (since the demons already know who is doing the exorcisms in any parish anyway), but to avoid the type of popular sensationalism and superstition that Ripperger appeals to in order to get attention. A lot of people in the conservative wing of the new church are highly superstitious and think demons cause every natural event that is a little weird, and think everyone is possessed by demons (I think they have invented the word "oppressed" by demons now, to avoid that accusation I just mentioned). So when people like this hear a priest (invalidly ordained) going on and on about demons all the time and how many people are possessed, they eat it with a big spoon.
Traditionally, the Church is always extremely slow to say anyone is possessed by the devil (and I'm not aware of those terms "demonic obsession" or "demonic oppression" being used before Vatican 2, I don't think they're traditional). In fact, the very ceremony of exorcism in the Roman Ritual, a liturgical book, says as much, and says that priests should be very reluctant to believe anyone possessed, and not unless they can either speak many words in a foreign language, reveal hidden or secret information unknown to them, or do things physically impossible. And it implies people should do more than one of those things, or more than once. Ever hear Ripperger tell people this?
The Catholic idea is to assign natural causes to things. Thus, if you see a devil in your imagination as you pick up a book about devils, that is probably your imagination. If have a nightmare, that is your imagination. That is how people should think, and that is what is taught by the true Catholic mystics and teachers of the spiritual life.
Yes, Fr Ripperger has explained numerous times actual possession is rare. Less than 1%. And he indeed explains the conditions you list. So yes, people who follow him are told all of that.
As far as imagining devil's I'm sure there are many who do so. One can become obsessed with worry about them. It's psychological obsession. And it's a crisis that is an opportunity for a demon to attack the person's imagination. And then diabolic obsession is in the equation. Demons can attack us in dreams as well.
Regarding the term diabolic obsession not used prior to VII, it is because it was previously known as Circuмsession.
-
Awesome book. Best book on prayer and it's interconnectedness with spiritual advancement I've ever read. It shows how advancement in the spiritual life or sanctity and advancement in your prayer life coincide, how they're inseparable. Also explains to the reader how to practice mental prayer in different ways at different stages and how to recognize God working in the soul. What is mental prayer? How do you know when to simplify your mental prayer? How does meditation become contemplation? What is God doing? What do you do? How and why is advancing in the spiritual life of union with Christ and advancing in prayer inseparable or interdependent? This book explains all this and more in a lot of detail especially drawing from the writings of St. John if the Cross and St. Theresa of Avila. Book is 3 or 4 hundred pages. Very exhaustive. Worth it.
Indeed
The preface itself is worth the price of admission. One example..
"Reading seeks the sweetness of the beatic life, meditation finds it, prayer asks for it, contemplation tastes it."
-
Obsession is indeed a traditional form of diabolical influence discussed in spiritual theology.
The traditional divisions of diabolical influence in the manuals are: 1) temptations, 2) obsession (interior or exterior), and 3) possession.
Fr. Antonio Royo Marin, OP summarizes the traditional theology well in his manual Teologia de la Perfeccion Cristiana.
Mgr. Ribet discussed these three divisions more extensively in his 1883 work La mystique divine. Fr. Pierre Thyrée, SJ was the classic author of demonology, witchcraft and occult extraordinary phenomena, especially his De daemoniacis, 1594.
The Catholic Encyclopedia article is good: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12315a.htm
St. Thomas discusses diabolical influence generally in various places, e.g. ST Ia, q. 114; In II Sent., dist. 8, q. 1. There are also many other saints who discuss these matters with more or less depth.
The 1917 Code was absolutely clear that laity and even unauthorized clergy were forbidden to attempt an exorcism (c. 1151-53).
There is increasing discussion of "generational spirits" among some exorcists or people interested in this topic. I've never spent time looking into it, and it doesn't seem to be mentioned in the traditional manuals as far as I know (but I don't know much at all in this topic). But what I mentioned above is clearly laid out in the traditional sources.
Regarding generational spirits, I'm thinking the fall of Adam and Eve and the resulting original sin would be an example.
Fr Ripperger goes into it in Dominion but I've not made it that far yet. It's about a third of the way into the book. It's in the chapter covering Structure of Authority.
-
.
I’d be cautious about getting overly involved in his exorcism prayers. He wrote and adapted most of them. I think it’s not good for lay people to be praying other than short spiritual warfare prayers as needed under demonic temptation, or as guided by one’s spiritual advisor. (One amateur exorcist in the resistance movement is enough!)
Well, he is very clear that Laity do not have the authority to pray prayers of exorcism. He's modified some of them into Deliverance prayers and he does strongly encourage people to talk to a spiritual director before they begin praying them.
-
Did you experience any sort of demonic retaliation after praying the Auxilium Christianorum prayers. I did 3 times not far apart but they subsided. Then I started praying Servite rosary along with the other daily prayers as required by the Society of the Most Sorrowful Mother, the Doloran Fathers aFr Ripperger is part of. Now I've had them come at me again.
The worst was one night I was reaching for my copy of Deliverance Prayers For The Laity and I envisioned the most repulsive image of a demon I've ever seen in a painting or otherwise. It didn't frighten me but I immediately made the sign of the cross and it disappeared.....
This would tell me, not sure why it doesn't tell you, but this would tell me in no uncertain terms that something I'm doing is wrong. If I tied it to Fr. Ripperger as you do, then that would be the immediate end of him for me.
Some years ago I listened to a few dozen of his sermons / talks and they were good, but, not sure how I would describe them exactly, maybe simply saying that his are sermons given by an indult priest is the best way to describe what you will hear. But thankfully, I did not experience what you did.
Anyhow, his book Dominion has allowed me to figure out what type of demonic influence drives my habitual sins. In my case it's demonic oppression.
We have zero, I repeat, zero reason to delve into the source of our temptations any deeper than to know the devil is tempting us. This is a curiosity that is not only dangerous to delve into, there is something a bit perverse about it as well. What you describe strikes me, or is likened to him writing about us trying to figure out a particular devil's personality, scary for him to even publish such a thing, even though these days I think most would disagree.
What we need to know, and *all* that we need to know, is the best methods to avoid temptation so as to not sin.
I could go on about the reasons why I stopped listening to him, suffice to say that there is a lot he says that does not need saying, a lot that does not say, and some things he should say that he does not, just the same as many [indult] priests. I used to wonder if the revenue he generates for his order has anything to do with it, but I don't really think that's it. I think he waves both the trad and NO flags - as do all indult priests, and this is what came out in the sermons I heard.
-
So when people like this hear a priest (invalidly ordained) going on and on about demons all the time and how many people are possessed, they eat it with a big spoon.
Yes, I've always gotten the impression that Fr. Ripperger exaggerates the extent of diabolical activity, seeing nearly everything bad that happens as being the result of direct diabolical activity. Sins and character flaws seem to him to be all caused by "generational spirits". So if you're arrogant, it's because of a certain demon. If you're prone to impurity or to sloth, that's caused by another set of demons. Well, a lot of this is just due to Original Sin and the human condition. Maybe someone is arrogant or impure or slothful ... just because they made sinful choices or some of that could be due to natural temperament, etc. He even says that people who have "bad luck" financially are under diabolical attack. Devils don't care about finances. They're rather see people affluent, since as Our Lord said, it's very difficult for the wealthy to enter the Kingdom of God. Demons don't cause sinful inclinations, as it were, against someone's will. They can't. They can only go so far as to try to induce people into making sinful decisions, but can't cause someone to be lustful or gluttonous or slothful.
Generally speaking, Holy Water, blessed religious articles, especially St. Benedict's medals, etc. tend to keep the demons away for the most part.
-
Obsession is indeed a traditional form of diabolical influence discussed in spiritual theology.
Nobody's denying diabolical influence or activity, just the EXTENT of it. Traditionally, inclinations toward sinful behavior are attributed to one of THREE sources, the flesh, the devil, and the world. It's almost as if Father Ripperger ignores the other two causes and seems to imply that it's all caused by the devil. If someone is addicted to pornography, it's not because his great great great grandfather committed sins of impurity.
-
I was looking for videos one evening and come across a Fr Ripperger one on sacramentals. So I began watching others and he's an excellent catechist imo.
I bought his book Deliverance Prayers For The Laity and begin praying the Auxilium Christian prayers. Soon after I understood why he strongly suggested one speak with a priest before praying the prayers. Demons don't like them.
I also got a copy of his latest book Dominion. It far exceeds the other books I've read on angels, demons, and spiritual warfare.
Anyhow I'm glad I found him online. As far as the details of what goes on in the room when he performs a solemn exorcism, I'm not intrigued by all of that. Everything else he presents is solid imo.
What are the general thoughts here about Fr Ripperger ? I realize he's indult but he certainly is orthodox.
Even an indult friend of mine burnt his books after consulting a more traditional priest because some of the exorcism prayers in there are NOT for laymen even if he claims so in the books. Some families encountered disturbance after reciting those.
Also, he's just popular on the internet because he gets more promotion. As for the sermons, I've heard many that are better. As for if he's validly ordained? Doubt.
-
I have listened to his videos and they were helpful.
I never prayed any of those deliverance prayers.
-
Nobody's denying diabolical influence or activity, just the EXTENT of it. Traditionally, inclinations toward sinful behavior are attributed to one of THREE sources, the flesh, the devil, and the world. It's almost as if Father Ripperger ignores the other two causes and seems to imply that it's all caused by the devil. If someone is addicted to pornography, it's not because his great great great grandfather committed sins of impurity.
I agree with you. I was simply clarifying that "obsession" is in fact a traditional term. Someone had earlier expressed doubt that "obsession" was found in traditional, pre-VII theology. I don't know how Fr Ripperger uses it, but the term is found in most of the standard manuals of spiritual and ascetic theology, e.g. Tanquerey, Royo Marin, Poulain.
While there were many other terms to designate diabolical influence, in systematic theology as found in the early 20th century, the neoscholastics found it most useful to classify under the three broad categories I mentioned: temptations, obsession (external or internal), and possession.
-
Regarding the term diabolic obsession not used prior to VII, it is because it was previously known as Circuмsession.
Typically circuмsession (Lat. circuмsessio) referred to the relations of the Three Persons of the Trinity and their mutual indwelling. Circuмsessio is different than obsessio, but some of the spiritual authors note that earlier authors, before the advent of neoscholastic systematic theology, used various terms interchangeably. However, I'm not well read in the books on demons... The manualists seem not to use circuмsessio to refer to diabolical influence because this term is already used in reference to Trinitarian theology. Tanquerey and Royo Marin (and the authors they cite) tend to use obsession and possession as the main divisions when discussing the relationship of diabolical influence to the spiritual life.
I am also very skeptical of referring to Original Sin and its consequences as an example of "generational spirits," since no traditional theologian that I have ever read does this. Could you furnish a concrete example of a theologian who does so, or perhaps one that Fr Ripperger references?
-
This would tell me, not sure why it doesn't tell you, but this would tell me in no uncertain terms that something I'm doing is wrong. If I tied it to Fr. Ripperger as you do, then that would be the immediate end of him for me.
Some years ago I listened to a few dozen of his sermons / talks and they were good, but, not sure how I would describe them exactly, maybe simply saying that his are sermons given by an indult priest is the best way to describe what you will hear. But thankfully, I did not experience what you did.
We have zero, I repeat, zero reason to delve into the source of our temptations any deeper than to know the devil is tempting us. This is a curiosity that is not only dangerous to delve into, there is something a bit perverse about it as well. What you describe strikes me, or is likened to him writing about us trying to figure out a particular devil's personality, scary for him to even publish such a thing, even though these days I think most would disagree.
What we need to know, and *all* that we need to know, is the best methods to avoid temptation so as to not sin.
I could go on about the reasons why I stopped listening to him, suffice to say that there is a lot he says that does not need saying, a lot that does not say, and some things he should say that he does not, just the same as many [indult] priests. I used to wonder if the revenue he generates for his order has anything to do with it, but I don't really think that's it. I think he waves both the trad and NO flags - as do all indult priests, and this is what came out in the sermons I heard.
Well I just spent about 20 minutes preparing a reply to your post and when I tried to submit it it said I was logged out and I lost the text.
Longer story short, I agree all we need to know is how to fight temptation. And the great majority of his catechesis is precisely on that topic.
Before I started praying the Deliverance prayers and the Auxilium Christianorum prayers I was in and out of the confessional a couple times a week over the same four sins. It's going on 2 months since I've committed those sins. I've been tempted but immediately caught myself. So I think I am doing something right. And evidence of it is that I'm pissing off the demons responsible for tempting me to commit those sins.
I'm closing whatever doors were open and now they're trying a different tactic of scaring me and it's failing.
My prayer time has increased ~ tenfold and for the first time in my life I get what true mental prayer is by reading the Lehodey work I discovered while a watching one of Fr Ripperger's videos.
He's not for everyone. I totally get that.
Pax
-
Typically circuмsession (Lat. circuмsessio) referred to the relations of the Three Persons of the Trinity and their mutual indwelling. Circuмsessio is different than obsessio, but some of the spiritual authors note that earlier authors, before the advent of neoscholastic systematic theology, used various terms interchangeably. However, I'm not well read in the books on demons... The manualists seem not to use circuмsessio to refer to diabolical influence because this term is already used in reference to Trinitarian theology. Tanquerey and Royo Marin (and the authors they cite) tend to use obsession and possession as the main divisions when discussing the relationship of diabolical influence to the spiritual life.
I am also very skeptical of referring to Original Sin and its consequences as an example of "generational spirits," since no traditional theologian that I have ever read does this. Could you furnish a concrete example of a theologian who does so, or perhaps one that Fr Ripperger references?
No, original sin as an example is totally an notion of my own. I'm wide open to correction on that.
I just took a quick glance at the chapter where he discusses generational spirits and there are quite a few footnotes and citations. One is from Mark 9:20 Where a man brings his possessed son to Jesus, and the man is asked how long his son had been this way. The man answered "from his birth". Fr Ripperger then proceeds to speculate on causes. One of which is while the infant was in the womb the mother may have committed a sin which granted access to a demon.
Just scanning over the text I noticed St Thomas mentioned. Fr Ripperger offers another way demons can get access to children which is by means of the sins of parents. And the children can commit those sins by means of imitation.
I'll have to wait until later this evening and read the entire section on generational spirits.
-
I’d be cautious about getting overly involved in his exorcism prayers. He wrote and adapted most of them. I think it’s not good for lay people to be praying other than short spiritual warfare prayers as needed under demonic temptation, or as guided by one’s spiritual advisor. (One amateur exorcist in the resistance movement is enough!)
.
Indeed. Why does he need to be writing his own prayers? I've never heard of a traditional priest composing his own prayers. And I believe prayers before Vatican 2 had to be approved by a bishop.
In any case, why not just tell people to say the rosary? Isn't that effective enough against demons?! I've heard of maybe one or two prayers specifically against demons before Vatican 2, such as the St. Michael's prayer (both versions, I guess), and the minor exorcism, which I think it a longer version of the two I mentioned already. Other than that, the idea doesn't appear to be traditional. And you're telling me Ripperger has written enough of these anti-demon prayers to fill an entire BOOK??! :facepalm:
-
The St. Michael's prayer and the Rosary are really all you need, practically. I have first-hand experience of the St. Michael's prayer's efficacy. You don't need a book full of spurious prayers from some celebrity exorcist.
-
Some trads are like Evangelicals in that they'll follow a celebrity priest or a priest who lets internet fame get to him and treat his words like gospel. They treat Fr. Ripperger like Muslims do Muhammad.
-
Some trads are like Evangelicals in that they'll follow a celebrity priest or a priest who lets internet fame get to him and treat his words like gospel. They treat Fr. Ripperger like Muslims do Muhammad.
This is not limited to Ripperger. It's something I've been vocal about lately. Williamson, Lefebvre, Cekada, Sanborn, Dimond, Walthen, etc. it is a phenomenon that is widespread among trads that is very disconcerting.
This division and idolizing of clerics is all part of Satan's game.
"Every kingdom divided against itself shall be made desolate: and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand."
[Matthew 12:25]
"For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears:"
[2 Timothy 4:3]
For while one saith, I indeed am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollo; are you not men? What then is Apollo, and what is Paul? The ministers of him whom you have believed; and to every one as the Lord hath given."
[1 Cor. 3:4-5]
-
This is not limited to Ripperger. It's something I've been vocal about lately. Williamson, Lefebvre, Cekada, Sanborn, Dimond, Walthen, etc. it is a phenomenon that is widespread among trads that is very disconcerting.
This division and idolizing of clerics is all part of Satan's game.
"Every kingdom divided against itself shall be made desolate: and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand."
[Matthew 12:25]
"For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears:"
[2 Timothy 4:3]
For while one saith, I indeed am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollo; are you not men? What then is Apollo, and what is Paul? The ministers of him whom you have believed; and to every one as the Lord hath given."
[1 Cor. 3:4-5]
This phenomen happens on every group without a strong leadership. It didn't happen in the Church because we had the Pope, who has always been the symbol of unity.
When we have no Pope, or, at least, no Catholic Pope, divisions and learders will emerge. It's inevitable. When there's a vacuum in power and leadership, it is quickly filled.
It is a social phenomenon. We would expect Catholics to be better than this, but you cannot deny human nature.
-
This phenomen happens on every group without a strong leadership. It didn't happen in the Church because we had the Pope, who has always been the symbol of unity.
When we have no Pope, or, at least, no Catholic Pope, divisions and learders will emerge. It's inevitable. When there's a vacuum in power and leadership, it is quickly filled.
It is a social phenomenon. We would expect Catholics to be better than this, but you cannot deny human nature.
It's an unfortunate circuмstance, and the biggest proof that there is no true Pope at this time.
-
Well, he is very clear that Laity do not have the authority to pray prayers of exorcism. He's modified some of them into Deliverance prayers and he does strongly encourage people to talk to a spiritual director before they begin praying them.
I need to clarify what I said there. He took most all of the prayers in Deliverance Prayers For The Laity from books he was given while training to be an exorcist. There is a different edition of the same title for clergy only that has prayers of exorcism contained in it.
He explains it in the first few minutes of the video below. He didn't write the prayers and they were already in use before he assembled them. He did mention a Deliverance Prayer for breaking Free Masonic ties that was written by a Protestant. He catholicized it and included it in the book.
And on some deliverance prayers in the book he tells the reader how to protect himself from demonic retaliation. For example if a prayer begins with "in the name of Jesus I bind thee.." Laymen can simply alter it to "Jesus, I ask you to bind.." ( by doing so the layman does not imply authority he does not have )
https://youtu.be/zG_X_fEXxbs
Also here is part 1 of 3 on generational spirits.
https://youtu.be/mpJgVAs02Dc
-
This is not limited to Ripperger. It's something I've been vocal about lately. Williamson, Lefebvre, Cekada, Sanborn, Dimond, Walthen, etc. it is a phenomenon that is widespread among trads that is very disconcerting.
This division and idolizing of clerics is all part of Satan's game.
"Every kingdom divided against itself shall be made desolate: and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand."
[Matthew 12:25]
"For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears:"
[2 Timothy 4:3]
For while one saith, I indeed am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollo; are you not men? What then is Apollo, and what is Paul? The ministers of him whom you have believed; and to every one as the Lord hath given."
[1 Cor. 3:4-5]
I listen to mainly Fr. Wathen and Fr. Hesse pretty much every day and have done so for years, but heck, I'm always open to try others that I can learn from. We become drawn to hearing the truths of our holy religion preached by priests, which is the reason for listening.
Listening to talks and sermons on cassette tape a few times a week is what we did as children to learn the faith when faithful priests were nowhere to be found. My mom would get us all in the living room to listen to the priests preaching, warning and teaching the faith, and she would occasionally pause the tape to explain or clarify some things that as children, we could relate to. Fond memories from dark days. I wish someone would have recorded pre-sede Fr. Sanborn, to this day I still have very great respect for him from his sermons way back then.
St. Paul tells us that faith comes from hearing, so the phenomenon is good in that it helps us learn and grow in the faith, provided what you're hearing is the truly the faith - no matter who is doing the preaching - and not a watered down version.
A major reason for the various different beliefs among the faithful within the Church is because there is a severe lack of *authentic* Catholic teaching by today's trad priests.
-
Some trads are like Evangelicals in that they'll follow a celebrity priest or a priest who lets internet fame get to him and treat his words like gospel. They treat Fr. Ripperger like Muslims do Muhammad.
I listen to Fr. Ripperger (many others are on his website also) while I cook, clean or bake. I know of other traditional Catholics who listen to his website and we listen for spiritual guidance in our daily lives. None of us listen to him for info on exorcisms and certainly none of him do as you purport above. Calumny is a sin.
-
One of many anonymous priests on Father Ripperger's website:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJ134h-597g
-
One of many anonymous priests on Father Ripperger's website:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJ134h-597g
Thank you, I'll watch it now !
-
I need to clarify what I said there. He took most all of the prayers in Deliverance Prayers For The Laity from books he was given while training to be an exorcist. There is a different edition of the same title for clergy only that has prayers of exorcism contained in it.
He explains it in the first few minutes of the video below. He didn't write the prayers and they were already in use before he assembled them. He did mention a Deliverance Prayer for breaking Free Masonic ties that was written by a Protestant. He catholicized it and included it in the book.
And on some deliverance prayers in the book he tells the reader how to protect himself from demonic retaliation. For example if a prayer begins with "in the name of Jesus I bind thee.." Laymen can simply alter it to "Jesus, I ask you to bind.." ( by doing so the layman does not imply authority he does not have )
https://youtu.be/zG_X_fEXxbs
Also here is part 1 of 3 on generational spirits.
https://youtu.be/mpJgVAs02Dc
Thank you for the clarification. The person who told me he composed some of the prayer was wrong, and I'm glad to hear that!
-
Thank you for the clarification. The person who told me he composed some of the prayer was wrong, and I'm glad to hear that!
Quite welcome
He's not for everyone but it's enough to just say that.
-
I listen to Fr. Ripperger (many others are on his website also) while I cook, clean or bake. I know of other traditional Catholics who listen to his website and we listen for spiritual guidance in our daily lives. None of us listen to him for info on exorcisms and certainly none of him do as you purport above. Calumny is a sin.
Yes. Me too.
-
The St. Michael's prayer and the Rosary are really all you need, practically. I have first-hand experience of the St. Michael's prayer's efficacy. You don't need a book full of spurious prayers from some celebrity exorcist.
We say these together daily along with this prayer each morning
This prayer (somehow related to La Salette) was dictated by Our Lady to a soul on 13 January 1863. The prayer received the Imprimatur from the local Bishop; was recommended to the faithful by Pope Pius IX; and later indulgenced by Pope Leo XIII and also by Pope Pius X.
It is recommended to learn it by heart.
See also http://www.marysheel.org/two-prayers/5-august-queen-prayer.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQdHa_6oEqA&authuser=0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=yQdHa_6oEqA
-
We have zero, I repeat, zero reason to delve into the source of our temptations any deeper than to know the devil is tempting us. This is a curiosity that is not only dangerous to delve into, there is something a bit perverse about it as well. What you describe strikes me, or is likened to him writing about us trying to figure out a particular devil's personality, scary for him to even publish such a thing, even though these days I think most would disagree.
I looked back through the introduction of Dominion. I usually just skim through introductions of books. Anyhow Fr Ripperger actually agrees with you.
In the introduction he mentions the difference between the laity version of Dominion and that of the clergy version.
"One aspect of this text for the laity is anything that would lend itself to on the side of the laity has been removed for the version which is for the clergy only. Self diagnosis on the side of a person seeking help is virtually never accurate, as every exorcist will attest. Since demons tend to hide and feed the person false information, any self-diagnosis will virtually never be correct or precise. This does not mean they cannot use the tools in the spiritual warfare that are provided in this text and others but that they should avoid analyzing themselves and, instead, approach a knowledgeable and prudent priest, who can help them navigate any extraordinary influence or complex spiritual warfare issue."
So there we see he is not promoting self-diagnosis nor offering anything dangerous to delve into. He is warning one not to do so.
In my case I simply saw that what I experienced was oppression vs obsession after reading the section on the different kinds of oppression. No deep thought or discernment on my part. Just something that stood out as obvious.
-
In my case I simply saw that what I experienced was oppression vs obsession after reading the section on the different kinds of oppression. No deep thought or discernment on my part. Just something that stood out as obvious.
I understand that, yet to tie back to him the vivid envisioning of what was apparently the devil just seems wrong to me. Or perhaps better said, would be wrong *for* me. After giving it a little more thought, maybe that's something you need for whatever reason, but I sure don't.
I don't know about him tho. He does have some very good sermons, many other trad priests also have good sermons, but a major thing with me is that like Fr. Ripperger, most trad priests nowadays not only do *not* roundly condemn the new "mass," nearly all of them compromise to some extent believing it's just as good as the true Mass, albeit inferior.
Or they will roundly condemn it one time, then go the other way the next. I've seen this often enough in my life time that it kinda stands out somehow, not sure how to explain it. And I am not talking about sermons with repetitive condemning or promoting of the NOM, it's the compromising of it that leads to more compromise in other areas of the faith that I am talking about.
In my mind, that compromise with the new "mass" often comes through in certain aspects of some of their sermons, regardless of the subject matter. Which is why I just sum it up by describing it as his are sermons given by an indult priest.
-
And on some deliverance prayers in the book he tells the reader how to protect himself from demonic retaliation. For example if a prayer begins with "in the name of Jesus I bind thee.." Laymen can simply alter it to "Jesus, I ask you to bind.." ( by doing so the layman does not imply authority he does not have )
.
A prayer is a statement addressed to God or a saint. This is a statement addressed to the Devil. Catholics are never supposed to communicate with the spiritual world except in prayer ... to God, obviously. Or Our Lady or the saints or angels. That's it. Not to the Devil. Even a priest needs the permission of his bishop to perform an exorcism.
He did mention a Deliverance Prayer for breaking Free Masonic ties that was written by a Protestant. He catholicized it and included it in the book.
:facepalm:
-
. After giving it a little more thought, maybe that's something you need for whatever reason, but I sure don't.
Thanks for your reply. It was just there in front of me in the book. In my case what I need in regards to my habitual sins is start practicing custody of the eyes and my tongue.
-
.
A prayer is a statement addressed to God or a saint. This is a statement addressed to the Devil. Catholics are never supposed to communicate with the spiritual world except in prayer ... to God, obviously. Or Our Lady or the saints or angels. That's it. Not to the Devil. Even a priest needs the permission of his bishop to perform an exorcism.
Right, but no one on this thread nor Fr Ripperger in the two books I mentioned have said otherwise.
You're trying too hard lol.
-
Right, but no one on this thread nor Fr Ripperger in the two books I mentioned have said otherwise.
You're trying too hard lol.
He specifically cited the phrase "I bind thee" and was referring to that. I don't know that I can disagree with his concern. That sounds like a step away from Pablo the lay exorcist. WE are trying to bind demons? How? I understand that the idea is that if we have God-given authority over someone, say, our children, we can in SOME way assert our God-given rights over them, but it's a fine line between that an attempting to bind demons. I know that my wife bought Father Ripperger's book and has been saying some of those prayers, and I think that the demonic attacks against my family have only increased since then.
-
He specifically cited the phrase "I bind thee" and was referring to that. I don't know that I can disagree with his concern. That sounds like a step away from Pablo the lay exorcist. WE are trying to bind demons? How? I understand that the idea is that if we have God-given authority over someone, say, our children, we can in SOME way assert our God-given rights over them, but it's a fine line between that an attempting to bind demons. I know that my wife bought Father Ripperger's book and has been saying some of those prayers, and I think that the demonic attacks against my family have only increased since then.
What book does she have ? If it's Deliverance Prayers For The Laity, it's all explained in the Introduction. Fr Ripperger isn't promoting exorcism by the laity.
As far as attacks after spiritual warfare prayers, well, it irritates demons. If they come at us it's because God permits it.
As Fr Ripperger says, if He didn't allow it, we'd be mediocre in our Spiritual lives at best.
Oppression, obsession .... They are going to come at us in those ways whether we are praying spiritual warfare related prayers or not.
Some of us can't handle an increase in demonic retaliation. Fr Ripperger acknowledges that. If someone is scared of demons, they perhaps don't have strong confidence in Our Lady's protection. Some struggle to stay in a state of grace. Could be many reasons. But Fr is very adamant in recommending we consult a spiritual director before upping our game with these prayers.
Myself, I say "bring it on Mr Devil. Screw you. I can't make you do anything. I can't stop you from messing with me. But those two standing behind me that I have confidence in can send you packing"
Anyhow, in my opinion Dominion is the best resource I have ever come across to up my game in the practice of Catholicism. It's what I needed.
Pax
-
...
Some of us can't handle an increase in demonic retaliation. Fr Ripperger acknowledges that. If someone is scared of demons, they perhaps don't have strong confidence in Our Lady's protection. Some struggle to stay in a state of grace. Could be many reasons. But Fr is very adamant in recommending we consult a spiritual director before upping our game with these prayers.
Myself, I say "bring it on Mr Devil. Screw you. I can't make you do anything. I can't stop you from messing with me. But those two standing behind me that I have confidence in can send you packing"
Anyhow, in my opinion Dominion is the best resource I have ever come across to up my game in the practice of Catholicism. It's what I needed.
Pax
The attitude displayed above is a great example of why much of Ripperger's teaching ought to be avoided, especially by neophytes.
-
The attitude displayed above is a great example of why much of Ripperger's teaching ought to be avoided, especially by neophytes.
Point taken, perhaps I should have said I'm just not scared of Satan's games. Fear of God, yes I welcome that gift of the Holy Ghost.
-
The attitude displayed above is a great example of why much of Ripperger's teaching ought to be avoided, especially by neophytes.
Indeed. I've verbalized such things to mock the Devil when under attack in the past, and let's just say it makes things a lot worse.
The best advice is to ignore him as you would any other temptations and say a prayer like the Pater, Ave, or St. Michael.
-
What book does she have ? If it's Deliverance Prayers For The Laity, it's all explained in the Introduction. Fr Ripperger isn't promoting exorcism bythe laity.
Yes, that's the book. Father can explain all he wants but the forms of the prayers themselves are sketchy. When people directly try to confront demons and "bind" them, I think that's probably playing with a fire. We appeal to Our Lady and St. Michael in particular and ask them to bind the demons.
-
Yes, that's the book. Father can explain all he wants but the forms of the prayers themselves are sketchy. When people directly try to confront demons and "bind" them, I think that's probably playing with a fire. We appeal to Our Lady and St. Michael in particular and ask them to bind the demons.
Well, all the prayers in my copy invoke either Our Lady, St Michael, the Precious Blood, the Holy Angels, our guardian angel, the Holy Ghost, the Blessed Trinity, Our Lord, or a combination of them to do the binding.
You write "We appeal to Our Lady and St. Michael in particular and ask them to bind the demons." I'm not sure why you don't see that they are asked to do the binding in a number of the prayers.
And why is the Precious Blood, our guardian angel, the Blessed Trinity, and Our Lord not included in yours and others' " all we need " list ?
-
Yes, unlike in the neo-SSPX, Fr. Ripperger emphasizes the importance of spiritual battle (E (http://sword://Bible/DRC/Ephesians 6:12)ph 6:12: "For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and powers, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places.").
-
Yes, unlike in the neo-SSPX, Fr. Ripperger emphasizes the importance of spiritual battle (E (http://sword://Bible/DRC/Ephesians 6:12)ph 6:12: "For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and powers, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places.").
Indeed, and it's a good fight.
-
Well, all the prayers in my copy invoke either Our Lady, St Michael, the Precious Blood, the Holy Angels, our guardian angel, the Holy Ghost, the Blessed Trinity, Our Lord, or a combination of them to do the binding.
Thread slipped down the page before I saw this, but now that I see it, ...
... in MY copy:
Spirit of [N.], I bind you in the Name of Jesus ...
With N., you're supposed to specify the exact type of evil spirit you're attempting to bind.
He even has a Latin version. Is that supposed to imply that this is some official prayer of the Church?
Spiritus [N.], ego te ligo in nomine Jesus ...
That Latin sounds like something a priest would say.
So he has the layman here directly addressing specific demonic spirits.
Then in the "Longer Form of Binding Prayer" (which also sounds rather New Agey):
I bind and render helpless any spirits affecting me ...
... going on to list a ton of spirits, including, among two pages worth of others, spirits that cause hiccups.
Then, some pages later ... I could post the ENTIRE "Adjuration" prayer. In fact, here, since a couple citations doesn't do it justice.
(https://i.ibb.co/LYfmxLM/bind1.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/xXRX5qW/bind2.png)
So here we have laymen attempting to exercise the "power and authority of Jesus" over evil spirits.
"I adjure you ... to depart from here."
"I cast you out, every unclean spirit ..."
"I bind you separately and individually and break all seals..."
"In the power and authority of Jesus, I command that you ..."
"I send you separately and individually ..."
"I command that you never return ..."
"I come against your hooks ... and command that you be cursed ..."
"You must come forth from this child of the Lord ..."
If this isn't Pablo the Lay Exorcist, then I don't know what is. For all we know, Pablo got the idea from this book.
I find it disturbing that a priest is encouraging lay people without the authority of the Church to do so, to directly give commands to evil spirits. That's a recipe for disaster if I ever saw one.
And it goes on, his so-called "Perimeter Prayer":
I adjure all your evil spirits, in the Name of ... Jesus ... to depart from here. I cast you out, every unclean spirit.
So you might want to check your copy again.
-
Those types of prayers (they're more commands) above are, IMO, incredibly dangerous. I find it perplexing that Father Ripperger emphasizes that one must have the authority of the Church to have any power over demonic spirits, and yet here he has lay people engaging, directly addressing, and commanding evil spirits "in the Name of Jesus."
As lay people, we should simply pray to Our Lady, the Terror of Demons, and be devoted to Her Holy Rosary. We should make use of the sacramentals provided by Holy Mother Church, the holy water, blessed articles, especially St. Beedict medals, etc.
But to constantly be thinking about these evils spirits, and be engaging them, and attempting to battle them directly, that's a recipe for disaster ... nor is it psychologically healthy. It can mess with someone's peace of soul. And we know that many things (including "hiccups") can have natural causes as well, and needn't see a demon behind every bush, and every hiccup. We also have to admit that some of our sins are caused by the flesh, and others by the world.
IMO, this book should be on the Index.
-
Those types of prayers (they're more commands) above are, IMO, incredibly dangerous. I find it perplexing that Father Ripperger emphasizes that one must have the authority of the Church to have any power over demonic spirits, and yet here he has lay people engaging, directly addressing, and commanding evil spirits "in the Name of Jesus."
As lay people, we should simply pray to Our Lady, the Terror of Demons, and be devoted to Her Holy Rosary. We should make use of the sacramentals provided by Holy Mother Church, the holy water, blessed articles, especially St. Beedict medals, etc.
But to constantly be thinking about these evils spirits, and be engaging them, and attempting to battle them directly, that's a recipe for disaster ... nor is it psychologically healthy. It can mess with someone's peace of soul. And we know that many things (including "hiccups") can have natural causes as well, and needn't see a demon behind every bush, and every hiccup. We also have to admit that some of our sins are caused by the flesh, and others by the world.
IMO, this book should be on the Index.
The bolded part seems to indicate you need to reread the introduction.
-
The bolded part seems to indicate you need to reread the introduction.
You apparently need to read the book you’re promoting here as you falsely claimed that all the prayers in this book are addressed to God, Our Lady, and the saints.
-
I have read the introduction, BTW. Father Ripperger asserts that lay people can make these binding prayers in the context of those over whom they have authority. He says that they do not see "retaliation" taking place in those circuмstances. But that seems purely anecdotal. "Well, we haven't seen it happen." How do they really know? But, that aside, the tone of many of these prayers, as cited above, does NOT make that clear at all. They're much more general and do not have any specific wording along those lines. It is extremely dangerous to attempt to direcly issue commands to demons. Every one of these prayers could, and absolutely should, simply be re-written along the lines of, "God [or Our Blessed Mother or the angels], please enforce the authority I have over these souls (wife, children, etc.) and accept my request, base on that authority, which is in fact your authority communicated to me, and banish these demonic spirit from them."
-
You apparently need to read the book you’re promoting here as you falsely claimed that all the prayers in this book are addressed to God, Our Lady, and the saints.
To clarify...
"Well, all the prayers in my copy invoke either Our Lady, St Michael, the Precious Blood, the Holy Angels, our guardian angel, the Holy Ghost, the Blessed Trinity, Our Lord, or a combination of them to do the binding."
That's what I posted. Unless you are referring to a different post of mine ?
The Adjuration prayer you quoted. I've never used that one but do see the concern over "I cast you out.."
I'd change that to "Jesus, I ask Thee to cast out..." per the instructions in the introduction.
Nevertheless the Adjuration prayer implies no authority by the one praying it but rather indicates Mary, God, and Our Lord are exerting the power over the demons.
I've been praying the Auxilium Christianorum Prayers and haven't actually read every prayer in the book yet. The ones that are for wives and children don't apply to me as I'm single. And the Masonic curse prayers don't apply to me. The book is just a collection of prayers from various other books. Not meant to replace something like My Prayer Book by Fr Lasance.
I'll read all the prayers of the book this evening at work. You have me wanting to determine how many of the prayers contain words that could imply authority a layman doesn't possess (no pun) unless modified.
Also, although I've not had access to a copy of the version for the Clergy, I'm guessing the introduction of it differs from the Laity version.
When I mentioned rereading the introduction, I was not implying you did not comprehend it in regards to Fr's explanation of a layman's use of the prayers. I had to read it a few times myself. Your concerns are valid but as long as a layman understands what level and types of authority we have, it's not an issue.
Those who think about demons obsessively or whose spiritual life is a mess ? Absolutely they should not use these prayers, as Fr Ripperger clearly acknowledges.
-
Nevertheless the Adjuration prayer implies no authority by the one praying it but rather indicates Mary, God, and Our Lord are exerting the power over the demons.
It doesn't matter that that the commands to the demons are "in the name of Jesus," etc. Problem remains that lay people act as if they had the authority to exert or invoke that authority. It is the layman delivering this "Adjuration" that is exerting the power, made clear by the first person there, "I bind ...", "I cast out ...", "I command ...".
-
Thread slipped down the page before I saw this, but now that I see it, ...
... in MY copy:
Quote
Spirit of [N.], I bind you in the Name of Jesus ...
With N., you're supposed to specify the exact type of evil spirit you're attempting to bind.
He even has a Latin version. Is that supposed to imply that this is some official prayer of the Church?
Quote
Spiritus [N.], ego te ligo in nomine Jesus ...
That Latin sounds like something a priest would say.
What the devil are you supposed to insert for the "N."??! The name of the demon? His rank in the infernal choirs of angels? What? And how are you supposed to know any of this information? By asking the demon to show you his ID and proof of insurance?! This is not just bizarre, it's outright disturbing!
-
With N., you're supposed to specify the exact type of evil spirit you're attempting to bind.
He even has a Latin version. Is that supposed to imply that this is some official prayer of the Church?
Quote
That Latin sounds like something a priest would say.
What the devil are you supposed to insert for the "N."??! The name of the demon? His rank in the infernal choirs of angels? What? And how are you supposed to know any of this information? By asking the demon to show you his ID and proof of insurance?! This is not just bizarre, it's outright disturbing!
Yes, there's a list on the followig page of possible values for N. ... e.g. "spirit of fornication," "spirit of gluttony," etc.
-
Those types of prayers (they're more commands) above are, IMO, incredibly dangerous. I find it perplexing that Father Ripperger emphasizes that one must have the authority of the Church to have any power over demonic spirits, and yet here he has lay people engaging, directly addressing, and commanding evil spirits "in the Name of Jesus."
Fr. Ripperger's sermons sound like a scene in a Harry Potter book. I think his popularity comes not from his adherence to tradition (since NONE of this garbage about binding demons or addressing demons in prayer can be found in ANY pre-Vatican 2 prayer book), but from a toxic combination of lurid curiosity and sensationalism, superstition of people who think everything is caused by demons, and simple vanity of people who want to believe they are undergoing some sort of external attacks from demons as the great saints were, like the Cure of Ars.
Holy Angels, I'd really like to see an example of ANY prayer written before Vatican II that addresses a demon. I highly doubt you'll be able to find one. We address ourselves to God and the blessed in prayer, not to demons, sheesh! Is this really news to you? We do not talk to demons! Period. Seriously! Do you not get this??!
As lay people, we should simply pray to Our Lady, the Terror of Demons, and be devoted to Her Holy Rosary. We should make use of the sacramentals provided by Holy Mother Church, the holy water, blessed articles, especially St. Beedict medals, etc.
Indeed. Why is this not good enough for Fr. Ripperger?
But to constantly be thinking about these evils spirits, and be engaging them, and attempting to battle them directly, that's a recipe for disaster ... nor is it psychologically healthy. It can mess with someone's peace of soul. And we know that many things (including "hiccups") can have natural causes as well, and needn't see a demon behind every bush, and every hiccup. We also have to admit that some of our sins are caused by the flesh, and others by the world.
I was trying to get at this in some of my posts in this earlier thread, but you have explained this better than I did. Yes, every word of this is solid. I would just add that this demon-obsessed fake spirituality of Fr. Ripperger is a novelty and is not traditional, and that should be enough for traditional Catholics to reject it outright.
IMO, this book should be on the Index.
I wish I could give this entire post about sixteen thumbs up, but alas I could only give it one. :cowboy:
-
Fr. Ripperger's sermons sound like a scene in a Harry Potter book. I think his popularity comes not from his adherence to tradition (since NONE of this garbage about binding demons or addressing demons in prayer can be found in ANY pre-Vatican 2 prayer book), but from a toxic combination of lurid curiosity and sensationalism, superstition of people who think everything is caused by demons, and simple vanity of people who want to believe they are undergoing some sort of external attacks from demons as the great saints were, like the Cure of Ars.
I would add one other motivation, that people can somewhat offload responsibility. Instead of having to admit, "I failed," and "I fell into the sin of lust." or "I lost my temper.", there's a subtle "a demon caused me to do it." And perhaps not even some demon that I admitted into my life, but, rather, a demon that my great-great-grandfather inflicted on my family line.
-
I truly believe that the combination of Our Blessed Mother's protection and the sacramentals of the Church, holy water, blessed salt, and St. Benedict's medals, etc. are far more powerful against demonic forces than some deliverance prayer that I utter. If we consecrate ourselves and our families to Our Blessed Mother, she'll drive out all these demons and generational spirits, etc., much more effectively than we can through these prayers. With the sacramentals, they work quasi-ex-opere-operato with the authority of the Church. I am confident that holy water and blessed salt create an impervious barrier against demons, and that St. Benedict's medals do the same. I believe that Our Blessed Mother will protect those who offer the Holy Rosary (15 decades recommended) and will not let the demons attack those who are consecrated to her. Traditional exorcists report that they flee in terror from the presence of Our Blessed Mother.
Another thing that I find a bit strange is Fr. Ripperger's advice to pray to Our Lady of Sorrows to have her reveal to us which kind of demon is inflicting us. Why do we need this "private revelation"? We simply have to ask Our Lady, whatever it is, please get rid of it. There's a bit of inordinate curiosity at work here, the same type of attitude that inspires people to dabble in the occult. We have also spoken of before about the exorcists who interrogate demons to get details about who they are and what they're doing there, etc. How is that really a good idea? I thought that the interaction with demons was to be avoided. Newsflash -- demons lie. But there's this subtle implication, dovetailing with the "binding" prayers above, that we somehow have "more power" over these demons if we can name them. That seems a bit superstitious to me.
-
It doesn't matter that that the commands to the demons are "in the name of Jesus," etc. Problem remains that lay people act as if they had the authority to exert or invoke that authority. It is the layman delivering this "Adjuration" that is exerting the power, made clear by the first person there, "I bind ...", "I cast out ...", "I command ...".
It's a major problem if the person saying the prayer believes he/she has power over demons. Even Exorcists don't claim power over demons. The only person that walked this earth with such power is Our Lady, besides Our Lord.
Anyone who understands that and remains in a state of grace ? It's their battle to fight if they choose. (See my signature)
-
With N., you're supposed to specify the exact type of evil spirit you're attempting to bind.
He even has a Latin version. Is that supposed to imply that this is some official prayer of the Church?
Quote
That Latin sounds like something a priest would say.
What the devil are you supposed to insert for the "N."??! The name of the demon? His rank in the infernal choirs of angels? What? And how are you supposed to know any of this information? By asking the demon to show you his ID and proof of insurance?! This is not just bizarre, it's outright disturbing!
You don't try to identify the demon. It's in the introduction in to the book.
How can you critique a book you've never read ?
-
Yes, there's a list on the followig page of possible values for N. ... e.g. "spirit of fornication," "spirit of gluttony," etc.
Right, but not their names.
-
Holy Angels, I'd really like to see an example of ANY prayer written before Vatican II that addresses a demon. I highly doubt you'll be able to find one. We address ourselves to God and the blessed in prayer, not to demons, sheesh! Is this really news to you? We do not talk to demons! Period. Seriously! Do you not get this??!
Pope Leo XIII
https://www.catholic.org/prayers/prayer.php?p=682
Actually the Lord's Prayer asks for deliverance "from the evil one".
-
Pope Leo XIII
https://www.catholic.org/prayers/prayer.php?p=682
Okay, but it says right at the top of that page in huge letters that it is supposed to be said by a priest only. I wasn't including the prayers of the exorcism ceremony, which do in fact address the devil. I was talking about prayers that anyone can say.
Actually the Lord's Prayer asks for deliverance "from the evil one".
And it addresses this request to God the Father, not to the devil.
-
I think we are confusing deliverance prayers with exorcism rites.
38{37} (https://biblehub.com/catholic/mark/9-38.htm)John answered him, saying: Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, who followeth not us: and we forbade him. 39{38} (https://biblehub.com/catholic/mark/9-39.htm)But Jesus said: Do not forbid him. For there is no man that doth a miracle in my name and can soon speak ill of me.
-
Fr. Ripperger's sermons and conferences have been very helpful to me. I've been listening to his series on modesty this past week and he really fleshes the whole subject out. Not just about clothes but in the way you talk, the proper way to interact with priests, etc etc. He does talk a lot about spiritual warfare, obviously, as he's an exorcist. I don't listen to those conferences/talks because that all just seems over my head.
I have a hard time getting spiritual reading in every day so I will turn on his sermons as I'm doing dishes, cooking, folding laundy, etc.
-
Fr. Ripperger's sermons and conferences have been very helpful to me. I've been listening to his series on modesty this past week and he really fleshes the whole subject out. Not just about clothes but in the way you talk, the proper way to interact with priests, etc etc. He does talk a lot about spiritual warfare, obviously, as he's an exorcist. I don't listen to those conferences/talks because that all just seems over my head.
I have a hard time getting spiritual reading in every day so I will turn on his sermons as I'm doing dishes, cooking, folding laundy, etc.
He's actually a very solid Thomist ... but this stuff about exorcisms, especially the lay deliverance prayers does not sound right, for the reasons that both Yeti and I have articulated. At best, there's really no need for these deliverance prayers, and at worst they could invite diabolical retribution for attempting to do it without the requisite autority or competence.
-
What does everyone think about praying the long St Michael prayer of Leo Xlll? Is that the sole territory of the exorcist, too?
-
What does everyone think about praying the long St Michael prayer of Leo Xlll? Is that the sole territory of the exorcist, too?
Good question. I've wondered that as well.
-
What does everyone think about praying the long St Michael prayer of Leo Xlll? Is that the sole territory of the exorcist, too?
Good question. I've wondered that as well.
Initially the Laity could pray it. The 1930's Raccolta has a parsed version as an indulgenced prayer (sans the exorcism)
Fr Ripperger mentioned in one of his talks that today, not even priests can use the original prayer.
-
Initially the Laity could pray it. The 1930's Raccolta has a parsed version as an indulgenced prayer (sans the exorcism)
Fr Ripperger mentioned in one of his talks that today, not even priests can use the original prayer.
Did Father Ripperger explain why priests can no longer use the long St. Michael's prayer?
-
He's actually a very solid Thomist ... but this stuff about exorcisms, especially the lay deliverance prayers does not sound right, for the reasons that both Yeti and I have articulated. At best, there's really no need for these deliverance prayers, and at worst they could invite diabolical retribution for attempting to do it without the requisite autority or competence.
Ladislaus, I'm not remotely as determined to promote the praying of these prayers as Yeti and yourself are in denouncing them.
The bottom line is the question of authority. And if the Church has defined the authority of laymen to use certain prayers, which they have, then I suspect that lies at the heart of Fr Ripperger's confidence in presenting them for use by the laity.
I realize not everyone on the forum here has a copy of Dominion by Fr Ripperger. I do have it and looking through it last night I see that it's not simply his opinion the prayers and question are safe for the laity, but rather it's his conclusion after his research and study of many works. He cites St Thomas, St Alphonsus, and numerous other sources.
I'll begin going through the pertinent text and post a synopsis of it. I'll need time though. Ripperger uses many terms I'm not familiar with and I will have to do some homework so I can understand the context and so forth.
The Chapter titled Structure of Authority, which is around 70 pages is not easy reading for a lot of us.
-
Okay, but it says right at the top of that page in huge letters that it is supposed to be said by a priest only. I wasn't including the prayers of the exorcism ceremony, which do in fact address the devil. I was talking about prayers that anyone can say.
And it addresses this request to God the Father, not to the devil.
I have Father Ripperger's prayer book for laymen and NONE of the prayers are addressed to the enemy. Many of the prayers are like the Shield of St. Patrick, and others begin "In the name of Jesus." We are not exorcists, which is clearly explained in the intro.
This is a great example of a straw-man logical fallacy.
-
Did Father Ripperger explain why priests can no longer use the long St. Michael's prayer?
It has something to do with the docuмent Inde ab Aliquot Annis he mentions in the introduction of his book Deliverance Prayers For The Laity.
-
I have Father Ripperger's prayer book for laymen and NONE of the prayers are addressed to the enemy. Many of the prayers are like the Shield of St. Patrick, and others begin "In the name of Jesus." We are not exorcists, which is clearly explained in the intro.
This is a great example of a straw-man logical fallacy.
I was responding to a quote from a prayer posted by Holy Angels. If you dispute that the prayer says what Angels said it says, then you are arguing against him, not me.
-
I have Father Ripperger's prayer book for laymen and NONE of the prayers are addressed to the enemy. Many of the prayers are like the Shield of St. Patrick, and others begin "In the name of Jesus." We are not exorcists, which is clearly explained in the intro.
This is a great example of a straw-man logical fallacy.
Absolute nonsense, the same denial that Holy Angels here exhibited. I'd go so far as to say this is a lie. I quoted extensively from Father Ripperger's book, and in many cases, the layman is explicitly addressing the evil sprit. It's right there in black and white where i cited it. "I cast you out ...", "I bind you ..." I cited literally dozens of examples of this from the book. Obviously no one is praying to the evil spirits, but they are addressing them and issuing commands to them.
Absolutely unnecessarily, does not good, but has the potential for catastrophic harm. Somehow Father Ripperger has allowed Prot thinking on the matter to seep into his perspective.
You may wish to re-read this post:
https://www.cathinfo.com/art-and-literature-for-catholics/anyone-follow-fr-ripperger-here/msg847567/#msg847567
-
Absolute nonsense, the same denial that Holy Angels here exhibited. I'd go so far as to say this is a lie. I quoted extensively from Father Ripperger's book, and in many cases, the layman is explicitly addressing the evil sprit. It's right there in black and white where i cited it. "I cast you out ...", "I bind you ..." I cited literally dozens of examples of this from the book. Obviously no one is praying to the evil spirits, but they are addressing them and issuing commands to them.
Absolutely unnecessarily, does not good, but has the potential for catastrophic harm. Somehow Father Ripperger has allowed Prot thinking on the matter to seep into his perspective.
You may wish to re-read this post:
https://www.cathinfo.com/art-and-literature-for-catholics/anyone-follow-fr-ripperger-here/msg847567/#msg847567
Prot thinking ? Please explain why you say that.
-
The difference between Fr Ripperger's catechesis on spiritual warfare (and the prayers to wage it), and the criticism of his detractors, is that he draws from the study of what Church Doctors, Saints, and the Church have determined.
His detractors draw from their feelings and emotions.
-
The difference between Fr Ripperger's catechesis on spiritual warfare (and the prayers to wage it), and the criticism of his detractors, is that he draws from the study of what Church Doctors, Saints, and the Church have determined.
His detractors draw from their feelings and emotions.
Oh, stop it with this nonsense. You have yet to demonstrate that any of the criticisms Yeti and I have made regarding the laity directly addressing demons is inconssitent with the teaching of the "Church Doctors, Saints, and the Church." Quite the opposite, and the only precedent I see for encouraging the laity to utter "Deliverance Prayers" comes from Protestantism. I feel to see any Catholic Tradition along those lies.
Directly attempting to "cast out" and "bind" and "expel" demons is incredibly risky business for the laity who do not have the authority of the Church to do so, not even the Minor Order of Exorcist.
-
Prot thinking ? Please explain why you say that.
This notion of laity having the authority to cast out demons (vs. the Catholic Tradition that holds Exorcist to be an Order commissioned by the Church) is entirely Protestant. You hear the same kind of language from the Protestants, who have this notion regarding a "priesthood of believers," where any layman has this authority. Nor have I ever seen anywhere in Traditional sources this language of "binding" demons, whereas Prot rhetoric is replete with it.
-
https://stpaulcenter.com/what-to-know-about-catholic-deliverance-and-exorcism/
Deliverance and exorcism are two different forms of spiritual intervention. Deliverance is a broad term that can mean being freed from any problem of a spiritual nature or cause. Here it will be defined as deprecatory prayer (a request) offered with the hope that God will free a person from a spiritual affliction.
Over the last fifty years or so, most deliverance work was done by Protestant denominations, and the books on deliverance over that time were from those perspectives. One erroneous idea that comes out of this tradition is that anything commanded to a demon by a baptized Christian in the name of Jesus will be obeyed immediately. This is a magical-thinking approach as it doesn’t take into account the free will of the person in relationship with that demon. We cannot foist our choices onto other adults; they have their own free will. In some Protestant books on deliverance, one is encouraged to speak directly to, and command, the demons. This is imprecatory prayer, a direct command. It is critical to understand that imprecatory prayer directly commands a demon, which is a tacit acceptance to a personal battle with that demon, while deprecatory prayer asks God to act against the demon. The Catholic Church has understood that the full authority to command demons was given to the Twelve Apostles, therefore a priest needs Apostolic authority given to him by a bishop before he engages in a battle with a demon. Of course a bishop, cardinal, or pope can do an exorcism at any time.
This is consistent with my experience as well. Father Ripperger follows the Protestant pattern of "deliverance" and "binding" (both terms are strongly associated with Protestantism, as acknolwedge here in this article also), where his prayers also "encourage... [the faithful] to speak directly to, and command, the demons" leading to "a tacit acceptance to a personal battle with that demon".
-
The difference between Fr Ripperger's catechesis on spiritual warfare (and the prayers to wage it), and the criticism of his detractors, is that he draws from the study of what Church Doctors, Saints, and the Church have determined.
His detractors draw from their feelings and emotions.
I'm not interested in detracting Fr. Ripperger personally or in condemning what is good in his teaching. But, for example, I've heard a number of people admit, often reluctantly, that they felt oppressed or somehow harmed after praying his Auxilium Christianorum prayers daily. So it made me reconsider and look closer at what he was teaching.
Here's a daily prayer from AC
Most gracious Virgin Mary, thou who wouldst crush the head of the
serpent, protect us from the vengeance of the evil one. We offer our prayers,
supplications, sufferings and good works to thee so that thou may purify them,
sanctify them and present them to thy Son as a perfect offering.
May this offering be given so that the demons that influence or seek to influence the members of the
Auxilium Christianorum do not know the source of their expulsion and blindness.
Blind them so that they know not our good works. Blind them so that they know
not on whom to take vengeance. Blind them so that they may receive the just
sentence for their works. Cover us with the Precious Blood of thy Son so that we
may enjoy the protection which flows from His Passion and Death. Amen
The first couple sentences are great, but then it gets kinda strange:
May this offering be given so that the demons that influence or seek to influence the members of the
Auxilium Christianorum do not know the source of their expulsion and blindness.
Blind them so that they know not our good works.
Blind them so that they know not on whom to take vengeance.
Blind them so that they may receive the just sentence for their works.
Firstly, the actual source is God himself and the intercession of our Lady, not the members of AC. So why would a person ask that the demons be blinded to what they already know?
Secondly, demons can only do what God allows them to do, not one iota more, so why does the prayer take such a defensive and fearful stance? (like a legal contract trying to close any loopholes)
Why does it ask for them to be blinded "so that they may receive the just sentence for their works", they already have received their just sentence, they're DAMNED; that's what makes them demons.
Even Ray Charles could see there's something wrong with this blinding business :cowboy:
... he draws from the study of what Church Doctors, Saints, and the Church have determined.
...
This is the more fundamental problem with this aspect of his teaching; the prayers of his own composition don't really seem to bear out that statement.
I don't find Saints teaching people to say binding-prayers.
I don't find similar prayers in old prayer-books.
The closest that I can find in Papal teaching is the St. Michael prayer, but it doesn't take Ripperger's approach; it mostly exalts the intercession of St. Michael and predicts what we are living now:
In the Holy Place itself, where has been set up the See of the most holy Peter and the Chair of Truth for the light of the world, they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety, with the iniquitous design that when the Pastor has been struck, the sheep may be scattered.
In summary, I honestly think much of his spiritual warfare teaching is just exciting novelty. The Church's teaching is actually pretty simple but it's "boring": do your duty.
-
The difference between Fr Ripperger's catechesis on spiritual warfare (and the prayers to wage it), and the criticism of his detractors, is that he draws from the study of what Church Doctors, Saints, and the Church have determined.
If that is the case, it should be a rather simply thing to quote Church Doctors, Saints, and the magisterium as proof of that assertion.
-
If that is the case, it should be a rather simply thing to quote Church Doctors, Saints, and the magisterium as proof of that assertion.
He does that in Dominion and doesn't stop there. He ties it all together with natural law, divine law, imprecatory and deprecatory prayer, and more.
All of this isn't simple as it would seem.
More later, I'm still at work.
-
Lad, I want your thoughts on this.
Time stamp 4:48 to 12:22
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zG_X_fEXxbs
-
I'm not interested in detracting Fr. Ripperger personally or in condemning what is good in his teaching. But, for example, I've heard a number of people admit, often reluctantly, that they felt oppressed or somehow harmed after praying his Auxilium Christianorum prayers daily. So it made me reconsider and look closer at what he was teaching.
Here's a daily prayer from AC
The first couple sentences are great, but then it gets kinda strange:
Firstly, the actual source is God himself and the intercession of our Lady, not the members of AC. So why would a person ask that the demons be blinded to what they already know?
Secondly, demons can only do what God allows them to do, not one iota more, so why does the prayer take such a defensive and fearful stance? (like a legal contract trying to close any loopholes)
Why does it ask for them to be blinded "so that they may receive the just sentence for their works", they already have received their just sentence, they're DAMNED; that's what makes them demons.
Even Ray Charles could see there's something wrong with this blinding business :cowboy:
This is the more fundamental problem with this aspect of his teaching; the prayers of his own composition don't really seem to bear out that statement.
I don't find Saints teaching people to say binding-prayers.
I don't find similar prayers in old prayer-books.
The closest that I can find in Papal teaching is the St. Michael prayer, but it doesn't take Ripperger's approach; it mostly exalts the intercession of St. Michael and predicts what we are living now:
In summary, I honestly think much of his spiritual warfare teaching is just exciting novelty. The Church's teaching is actually pretty simple but it's "boring": do your duty.
https://stpaulcenter.com/what-to-know-about-catholic-deliverance-and-exorcism/
This is consistent with my experience as well. Father Ripperger follows the Protestant pattern of "deliverance" and "binding" (both terms are strongly associated with Protestantism, as acknolwedge here in this article also), where his prayers also "encourage... [the faithful] to speak directly to, and command, the demons" leading to "a tacit acceptance to a personal battle with that demon".
This notion of laity having the authority to cast out demons (vs. the Catholic Tradition that holds Exorcist to be an Order commissioned by the Church) is entirely Protestant. You hear the same kind of language from the Protestants, who have this notion regarding a "priesthood of believers," where any layman has this authority. Nor have I ever seen anywhere in Traditional sources this language of "binding" demons, whereas Prot rhetoric is replete with it.
All read and noted. Emile, I think your questions can be answered after I see what Ripperger says.
After he addresses the issue of the Protestant claim he writes, before moving on, "So the real question is threefold: (1) who can say binding prayers, (2) can one use a specific name of a demon, (3) what exactly are binding prayers doing ?......... The real question is number three above, namely, what exactly are binding prayers doing ?"
Every question, criticism, and all is addressed in Dominion. And in a near exhaustive manner. So he's not just saying "here, go pray these prayers"
To all, For now just a few quotes from Ripperger.
"Some assert that the church has only passed down to the laity deprecatory prayers for their use and not imprecatory prayers. However as we have already seen, Saint Alphonsus and St Thomas show that anyone has a right in private to adjurations, that is, commanding demons to depart or do certain things. Since the right to command the demons comes from the Divine positive law and the natural law, it means that the right to adjure comes from God and it binds on the conscience of the individual that if he detects through a proper discernment process that something is diabolic that he, at least, make use of the adjurations in order to protect his own spiritual life. One thing to note is that all human beings after the Fall have essentially been conscripted to engage in spiritual warfare. This follows from the fact that all human beings after the Fall are immersed in the spiritual battle, and therefore, to refuse to take up certain arms in order to engage that spiritual warfare is a sin of omission and negligence. Obviously, the real question is which arms one is to take up and which arms one should not and when one should apply them and when one should not. We have already seen above that it is the Divine positive law and the natural law that both give one the right as well as set the restrictions"
On the Protestant claim..
"This brings to the fore the question of "binding prayers". Some have asserted that binding prayers are not part of the Catholic Church tradition and that, in point of fact, binding prayers are of Protestant origin. Such an assertion shows a lack of theological depth. By way of example, the following may be observed. First, The Binding of demons is mentioned at least three times in Scripture : 1 when the archangel Saint Raphael took the devil and bound him in the desert in upper Egypt. 2 in reference to the house of satan, Our Lord references the fact that one cannot enter into the house of the strong man and rob him of goods unless he first binds him, and then shall he plunder his house. 3 in the book of the Apocalypse, reference is made to Christ taking hold of the dragon, the old serpent which is Satan, and binding him for a thousand years."
Ripperger's footnote regarding the passage from Mark..
"In this passage, even though our Lord is talking about the strong man as to the vocabulary, the reference is to the demons. In
fact it is necessary to bind the demons in order to strip them of the things that they are doing. St Thomas in his Catena Aurea notes that St Chrysostom observes that the desolation of the kingdom of the devil approaches as men will begin to repel Satan, and that one must first bind the demons before one can expel them."
Ripperger continues..
"Second, The Binding of demons is also mentioned within the rituals of the Church throughout history..."
Ripperger goes on with several more examples, concluding "from these examples, it becomes clear that The Binding of demons is not something that the Protestants discovered but is actually part of Catholic tradition."
-
All read and noted. Emile, I think your questions can be answered after I see what Ripperger says.
After he addresses the issue of the Protestant claim he writes, before moving on, "So the real question is threefold: (1) who can say binding prayers, (2) can one use a specific name of a demon, (3) what exactly are binding prayers doing ?......... The real question is number three above, namely, what exactly are binding prayers doing ?"
Every question, criticism, and all is addressed in Dominion. And in a near exhaustive manner. So he's not just saying "here, go pray these prayers"
To all, For now just a few quotes from Ripperger.
"Some assert that the church has only passed down to the laity deprecatory prayers for their use and not imprecatory prayers. [Uh, yeah!] However as we have already seen, Saint Alphonsus and St Thomas show that anyone has a right in private to adjurations, that is, commanding demons to depart or do certain things. [I have not seen such a thing.] Since the right to command the demons comes from the Divine positive law and the natural law, it means that the right to adjure comes from God and it binds on the conscience of the individual [what!!] that if he detects through a proper discernment process [how do you discern something like this??! especially a layman?!] that something is diabolic that he, at least, make use of the adjurations in order to protect his own spiritual life. [Ridiculous. Or he could just pray to God for protection.] One thing to note is that all human beings after the Fall have essentially been conscripted to engage in spiritual warfare. This follows from the fact that all human beings after the Fall are immersed in the spiritual battle, and therefore, to refuse to take up certain arms in order to engage that spiritual warfare is a sin of omission and negligence. [This is absolutely appalling. So Ripperger is claiming it's a moral obligation to pray his Harry Potter "prayers" to demons. This book is a horror show.] Obviously, the real question is which arms one is to take up and which arms one should not and when one should apply them and when one should not. We have already seen above that it is the Divine positive law and the natural law that both give one the right as well as set the restrictions"
-
On the Protestant claim..
"This brings to the fore the question of "binding prayers". Some have asserted that binding prayers are not part of the Catholic Church tradition and that, in point of fact, binding prayers are of Protestant origin. Such an assertion shows a lack of theological depth. By way of example, the following may be observed. First, The Binding of demons is mentioned at least three times in Scripture : 1 when the archangel Saint Raphael took the devil and bound him in the desert in upper Egypt. 2 in reference to the house of satan, Our Lord references the fact that one cannot enter into the house of the strong man and rob him of goods unless he first binds him, and then shall he plunder his house. 3 in the book of the Apocalypse, reference is made to Christ taking hold of the dragon, the old serpent which is Satan, and binding him for a thousand years."
Ripperger's footnote regarding the passage from Mark..
"In this passage, even though our Lord is talking about the strong man as to the vocabulary, the reference is to the demons. In
fact it is necessary to bind the demons in order to strip them of the things that they are doing. St Thomas in his Catena Aurea notes that St Chrysostom observes that the desolation of the kingdom of the devil approaches as men will begin to repel Satan, and that one must first bind the demons before one can expel them."
Ripperger continues..
"Second, The Binding of demons is also mentioned within the rituals of the Church throughout history..."
Ripperger goes on with several more examples, concluding "from these examples, it becomes clear that The Binding of demons is not something that the Protestants discovered but is actually part of Catholic tradition."
This is a problem I've discovered with Vatican 2 types like Fr. Ripperger. You object to them that their novel teachings and practices are not traditional, and they respond with quotes from Scripture. When we say something is not traditional, it means that it was not done or practiced before Vatican II, or in most of the history of the Church. So, to counter a charge that something is not traditional, what needs to be produced is some evidence that it was done in the past. Thus, if Fr. Ripperger wants to claim that binding prayers are traditional, he needs to produce, for example, a 19th-century book of binding or deliverance prayers, or examples of such prayers in Catholic prayer books before Vatican II.
Instead, he twists some passages from Scripture to support his aberrant practices and claims that is tradition.
Having said that, the arguments he brings forward from Scripture in support of this "binding" nonsense are really bizarre. Let's look at his proofs one at a time.
1 when the archangel Saint Raphael took the devil and bound him in the desert in upper Egypt.
The Archangel St. Raphael is not some lay person reading his book. Just because the Archangel St. Raphael can do something, it doesn't follow that therefore Aunt Tillie who just bought Fr. Ripperger's book on Amazon can do the same thing. :laugh1:
2 in reference to the house of satan, Our Lord references the fact that one cannot enter into the house of the strong man and rob him of goods unless he first binds him, and then shall he plunder his house.
This is a parable. It isn't something to take literally. I believe the "strong man" in this parable is traditionally interpreted to be Our Lord Himself, not the aforementioned Aunt Tillie. :facepalm: If we're going to start drawing all kinds of conclusions from parables, does this mean it's okay to steal because Our Lord praised the stealing of the unjust steward?
3 in the book of the Apocalypse, reference is made to Christ taking hold of the dragon, the old serpent which is Satan, and binding him for a thousand years."
A mysterious passage in the Apocalypse proves nothing. And this is Christ binding the demon, not Aunt Tillie. :facepalm:
Ripperger continues..
"Second, The Binding of demons is also mentioned within the rituals of the Church throughout history..."
Where? In exorcism ceremonies? The ones done by priests, with the permission of their ordinary? You mean those ceremonies?
-
May this offering be given so that the demons that influence or seek to influence the members of the Auxilium Christianorum do not know the source of their expulsion and blindness.
Blind them so that they know not our good works.
Blind them so that they know not on whom to take vengeance.
Blind them so that they may receive the just sentence for their works.
I agree with everything Emile said, and I just want to add that it seems bizarre to give such detailed instructions to Our Lady, as if she didn't know how to handle demons. Isn't it enough to ask for protection against demons? Why do you need to give step-by-step instructions to Our Lady?
"Okay, Blessed Mother, I want to you get these demons away from me, but don't forget to make sure they don't know what happened so they can't come back and get even with me later, mkay? You forgot to do that last time, so I need to remind you about it again, let's try to do a better job at protecting me this time, shall we?"
It's borderline impious.
-
Some of us can't handle an increase in demonic retaliation. Fr Ripperger acknowledges that. If someone is scared of demons, they perhaps don't have strong confidence in Our Lady's protection. Some struggle to stay in a state of grace. Could be many reasons. But Fr is very adamant in recommending we consult a spiritual director before upping our game with these prayers.
Myself, I say "bring it on Mr Devil. Screw you. I can't make you do anything. I can't stop you from messing with me. But those two standing behind me that I have confidence in can send you packing"
Anyhow, in my opinion Dominion is the best resource I have ever come across to up my game in the practice of Catholicism. It's what I needed.
Pax
While I commend your zeal for spiritual advancement, the way to advance in holiness is by reading books on the spiritual life such as The Imitation of Christ, the Introduction to the Devout Life, The Great Means of Salvation and of Perfection by St. Alphonsus, The Liturgical Year, the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius, and similar books, preferably written by saints, and putting their teachings into practice.
Taunting demons is not part of Catholic spirituality.
-
While I commend your zeal for spiritual advancement, the way to advance in holiness is by reading books on the spiritual life such as The Imitation of Christ, the Introduction to the Devout Life, The Great Means of Salvation and of Perfection by St. Alphonsus, The Liturgical Year, the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius, and similar books, preferably written by saints, and putting their teachings into practice.
Taunting demons is not part of Catholic spirituality.
I do have the bolded titles. Actually 5 volumes of St Alphonsus's ascetical works.
Currently, I've been begun reading Christian Perfection and Contemplation by Garrigou-Lagrange.
I agree wholeheartedly taunting demons isn't, nor has ever been part of Catholicism. But that's not what Fr Ripperger promotes.
I'd guess he agrees with you as well.
-
All read and noted. Emile, I think your questions can be answered after I see what Ripperger says.
Thank you for being willing to try to find the answers to the points raised, HA. I appreciate your honesty and civility.
I also wanted to add a point to what has been raised thus far:
In the last 170+ years our Lady has made numerous appearances warning us about what was and is happening. In all those appearances she warns but also encourages us by telling us that, even though we have to live through some terrible times, she is with us and we can, and even must, cling to her.
In those apparitions she repeatedly tells us to pray the Rosary.
She also encourages devotion to her Immaculate Conception and to her Immaculate Heart.
Also she instructs us to do our duties in life.
But nowhere can I find her even hinting at the form of binding-prayers taught by Fr. R. As she is the best of Mothers, I just can't see her neglecting to tell us something this important.
-
:facepalm:This is a parable. It isn't something to take literally. I believe the "strong man" in this parable is traditionally interpreted to be Our Lord Himself
The "strong man" in Matthew 12:29 refers to the enemy, NOT to Our Lord.
one cannot enter into the house of the strong man and rob him of goods unless he first binds him
-
The "strong man" in Matthew 12:29 refers to the enemy, NOT to Our Lord.
one cannot enter into the house of the strong man and rob him of goods unless he first binds him
Thank you, yes, you are correct, but still, the one binding him is Our Lord, not a lay person, which was my main point.
-
Yes, we do have God-given authority over our wives, and our children. But we do NOT directly address or challenge demons under any circuмstances.
God is absolutely in total control of what demons can and cannot do. These prayers imply a total lack of confidence in God, and in Our Blessed Mother. We can just as easily appeal to God and Our Lady, "Father, I beseech You by the authority you have granted me over my wife and my children (which is Your authority), to prevent any demonic forces from attacking of influencing them." There is absolutely zero need to go toe-to-toe with demons, commanding them, expelling them, casting them out, etc.
There is zero potential upside to this approach by Father Ripperger, and huge risks involved.
So we're going to take on the demons because ... God can't handle it if we ask Him to?
-
This is a problem I've discovered with Vatican 2 types like Fr. Ripperger. You object to them that their novel teachings and practices are not traditional, and they respond with quotes from Scripture. When we say something is not traditional, it means that it was not done or practiced before Vatican II, or in most of the history of the Church. So, to counter a charge that something is not traditional, what needs to be produced is some evidence that it was done in the past. Thus, if Fr. Ripperger wants to claim that binding prayers are traditional, he needs to produce, for example, a 19th-century book of binding or deliverance prayers, or examples of such prayers in Catholic prayer books before Vatican II.
Instead, he twists some passages from Scripture to support his aberrant practices and claims that is tradition.
Having said that, the arguments he brings forward from Scripture in support of this "binding" nonsense are really bizarre. Let's look at his proofs one at a time.
The Archangel St. Raphael is not some lay person reading his book. Just because the Archangel St. Raphael can do something, it doesn't follow that therefore Aunt Tillie who just bought Fr. Ripperger's book on Amazon can do the same thing. :laugh1:
This is a parable. It isn't something to take literally. I believe the "strong man" in this parable is traditionally interpreted to be Our Lord Himself, not the aforementioned Aunt Tillie. :facepalm: If we're going to start drawing all kinds of conclusions from parables, does this mean it's okay to steal because Our Lord praised the stealing of the unjust steward?
A mysterious passage in the Apocalypse proves nothing. And this is Christ binding the demon, not Aunt Tillie. :facepalm:
Where? In exorcism ceremonies? The ones done by priests, with the permission of their ordinary? You mean those ceremonies?
Spot on ... and yet I see that one of the Fr. Ripperger zealots downthumbed this post. There's absolutely nothing incorrect in any of what you've written here.
Thus far, with all the emoting on behalf of Father Ripperger, not a single pre-Vatican II precedent for this approach has been cited by his partisans.
It is absolutely unnecessary, as God is in absolute control of demons. And He has made Our Lady the Terror of Demons. Between appealing to God, to Our Lord, and Our Lady, there is absolutely no need for this junk whatsoever.
-
BTW, no one is simply trying to be a "detractor" of Father Ripperger. I generally like him and have supported him, but something has always struck me as a bit off with regard to his demonology approach.
1) his implication that demons are responsible for every sin and every evil (even for hiccups?). Many sins are simply the result of our own choices and our own weakess, combined with temptations from the world. We don't have to blame some generational spriit introduced by our great-great-grandparents for our own sins and failings. Father even speaks about how demons cause us financial problems ... rather than perhaps our own poor decisions. Even if they did, it's only because God permits it, and He has a higher purpose for whatever financial problems we face.
2) this excessive detail about specific demons that do specific things, his telling people to appeal to Our Lady of Sorrows to discover which demons are afflicting us, suggesting that if we address them by name, then somehow our prayers our more "powerful" ... as if we can't simply ask Our Lady to handle ANY such demons for us, whatever they might be. This smacks a bit of superstition.
3) mention of how he tries to interrogate demons during exorcisms (which I always thought had been forbidden)
All of this leads to a very unhealthy curiosity about and engagement with demonic forces that is incredibly dangerous that could actually lure people into engaging with these forces. Dimond Brothers make some good points about why the demons do things like hauntings and poltergeist types of activities. It's because they're luring people in to attempt to engage with the demonic spirit, which then in turn opens the door for the demons to inject themselves more directly into their lives.
It just takes one small mis-step in citing these deliverance prayers, where you're directly addressing demons, to slip up and invite them in to more direct engagement.
We go to God, Our Lord, Our Blessed Mother, St. Michael and our Guardian Angels.
Oh, by the way, speaking of our authority over our wives and our children. I have actually leverged this authority in prayer while addressing my guardian angel and the guardian angels of my wife and my children. I "command" / "bid" THEM by the authority I have over them to keep the demonic forces away. I bid my guardian angel to work with the others to remind them of my authority, which is the authority of God, and to enforce that authority against the demons. THIS is a correct leveraging of authority, since the angels DO in fact recognize that our authority is God's and will infallibly obey such commands, not because of ourselves, but because of God's authority that He has communicated to us. Meanwhile, the entire reason that Satan and the other devils are demand is because they REFUSED to submit to God. So by themselves, they're not particularly inclined to respect the God-given auhority we have over our wives and chldren. It's only because God FORCES them to obey that they obey at all. And so we need to ask God and Our Lady and the angels to enforce this authority.
We see even in exorcisms where the Church's authority is being applied that the demons do not always respond, and at least do not respond immediately. Exorcisms often drag on for long periods of time. Otherwise, why wouldn't they obey immediately? So if they do not comply with the Church's very autority, why would they comply with my lesser authority over my wife and my children. Even in exorcisms, their immediate response might be to escalate the situation and increase the attacks. As an exorcist, Father Ripperger really should know that. There's the story where Our Lord's disciples could not cast out demons, despite attempting to exorcise them in His Name. Our Lord attributed this to 1) lack of faith and 2) that some types of demons (an interesting question) can only be cast out through fasting. Why is that if just a simple exertion of authority suffices? We could add fasting to our prayers to Our Lord and Our Lady in this regard.
There's just way too much that's problematic with Father Ripperger's approach. I'd prefer to speak to my Guardian Angel, to my family's Guardian Angelts, to St. Michael, and above all to Our Blessed Mother, the Terror of Demons ... than to be constantly thinking about and talking to demons.
-
Let's be clear. Father Ripperger has become famous and a bit of a celebrity almost entirely do to his approach to demonology. People are by nature curious and have itchy ears, and this type of sensationalistic stuff attracts an audience. Were it not for this aspect of Father Ripperger, he would be just another Motu-Trad type of traditionalist with about a dozen followers on social media.
For the same reason that people watch the secular "Ghost Hunters" types of TV shows, Catholics find the equivalent in following and tuning in to Father Ripperger, who takes a lot of the same attitudes and a lot of the Prot attitudes and attempts to put a veneer not only of Catholicism but of Traditional Catholicism on top of it to justify it and make it seem acceptable.
I await any citations from before Vatican II, from Tradition, from the Fathers and the saints ... that backs up Father Ripperger's approach. If such are produced, I'll reconsider my objections, but it's very strange despite generic assertions that all this is consistent with the Fathers, Doctos, and saints ... not a single citation actually backing that up has been produced. Simply because Father Ripperger offers the Traditional Mass, this does not mean that his approach is ipso facto "Traditional".
-
http://www.catholictradition.org/Classics/abandonment10.htm
Not all temptations come from the demon. "Everyone is tempted by his own concupiscence, which draws and seduces him" (James, i, 14), and this evil fire is fanned into flame by the scandals of the perverse and imperfect. The majority of men expose themselves to peril of their own free choice, or they precipitate one another into it. The demon has little more to do than to fold his arms and watch them performing his bad work for him; but he labours unceasingly for the ruin of souls that belong to him no longer.
...
Each [demon], however, has a chain to its neck, and God leads them about as He pleases. Against His good-pleasure, they are powerlessness itself. He allows them no liberty to tempt, or He leaves them some latitude, more or less, as He judges fit, with regard to what persons He pleases, in the manner and for the time that He considers best. So the choice of the temptation, the time, the degree of its violence, and the period of its duration: all are in the hands of God, our Father, our Saviour, our Sanctifier. This surely ought to encourage us. With the assistance of grace, we can prevent many temptations, we can repel the fiercest attacks of the enemy, and we can never fall save by our own full and free consent. The demon may bark at us, threaten us, entice us; but he can only bite those that want to be bitten. But, alas! we have in our free will the awful power of yielding in spite of grace, of neglecting to solicit the help of grace, and even of exposing ourselves to temptation. And this is what should keep us in perpetual self-distrust. In last analysis, therefore, the danger lies in ourselves. We are ourselves the enemy we have most cause to fear.
...
The pious Bishop of Geneva [St. Francis de Sales] addressed St. Jane de Chantal in very similar terms: "... You shouldn't mistake the rustling of the leaves for the rattling of arms. Our enemy is a mighty blusterer. But don't let him frighten you. He has raised many an uproar and many a tumult around the Saints; but for all that, you see how they now occupy the place which he, miserable one, has lost forever. Let us pay no heed, then, to his fanfares, for he can do us no harm. That is why he wishes at least to terrify us, and by this terror to disturb our peace, and by this disturbance to weary us, and by this weariness to make us give up. Let us have no fear but of God, and even of Him only a loving fear. Let us keep the gates securely closed, and the walls of our resolutions in good repair, and then let us live in peace."
So Traditonal sources encourage us to put our confidence and trust in God, knowing that the demonic forces have only the power over us that God allows. They speak of how the demons can create a lot of noise and bluster ... but cannot touch us apart from God's will, as of course Our Lord has removed the bond of Satan over us by virtue of our Baptism, but the saints advice that we "pay no heed, then, to [their] fanfares, for [they] can do us no harm."
But instead, Father Ripperger encourages us to pay meticulous heed to how the devils might be attacking us, which ones, how, etc. In the one analogy, the demon is likened to a dog on a leash that's barking at us but cannot bite (because he's on God's leash) ... unless we go up to it and start messing with it. And isn't this precisely the attitude of Father Ripperger? Hey, let's go up to the barking dog and start trying to confront it. Isn't THAT when you become susceptible to being bitten? Instead of paying no attention to the barking by the demon, according to Father Ripperger, we're supposed to listen closely to the barking and attempt to decipher its meaning and intent and see how we can get the dog to quiet down?
This is all incredibly dangerous, and the Catholic approach should be to ask God, Our Lady, St. Michael, and the saints for their protection, and to remain focused on THEM rather than on the demons. As per St. Francis de Sales, we retain our peace by simply closing off the gates and turning inward toward God, and ignoring the bluster, the noise, and the barking outside. We should not, as Father Ripperger counsels, go to the door, start addressing the demons outside, and even potentially open a window or a door for them to get in.
Father Ripperger's book should be put on the Index and should be avoided by all Catholics. It pains me to say it, because I generally like Father Ripperger, but his talks and his books are potentially very harmful.
-
Does he list citations; book and page numbers?
If he lists St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus, what is the citation?
Where is the proof that deliverance prayers have a history of use by the laity?
-
Does he list citations; book and page numbers?
If he lists St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus, what is the citation?
Where is the proof that deliverance prayers have a history of use by the laity?
I've seen no proof for any of this.
-
To all, For now just a few quotes from Ripperger.
"Some assert that the church has only passed down to the laity deprecatory prayers for their use and not imprecatory prayers. However as we have already seen, Saint Alphonsus and St Thomas show that anyone has a right in private to adjurations, that is, commanding demons to depart or do certain things. Since the right to command the demons comes from the Divine positive law and the natural law, it means that the right to adjure comes from God and it binds on the conscience of the individual that if he detects through a proper discernment process that something is diabolic that he, at least, make use of the adjurations in order to protect his own spiritual life. One thing to note is that all human beings after the Fall have essentially been conscripted to engage in spiritual warfare. This follows from the fact that all human beings after the Fall are immersed in the spiritual battle, and therefore, to refuse to take up certain arms in order to engage that spiritual warfare is a sin of omission and negligence. Obviously, the real question is which arms one is to take up and which arms one should not and when one should apply them and when one should not. We have already seen above that it is the Divine positive law and the natural law that both give one the right as well as set the restrictions"
Never mind Ripperger's quotation of scripture.
Where is the quotation of other authorities giving such an explanation?
Not "he said, she said", but quoting works and page numbers of past authorities expounding on this?
Not paraphrasing words either, but actually sources?
-
BTW, no one is simply trying to be a "detractor" of Father Ripperger. I generally like him and have supported him, but something has always struck me as a bit off with regard to his demonology approach.
1)/ his implication that demons are responsible for every sin and every evil (even for hiccups?). Many sins are simply the result of our own choices and our own weakess, combined with temptations from the world. We don't have to blame some generational spriit introduced by our great-great-grandparents for our own sins and failings. Father even speaks about how demons cause us financial problems ... rather than perhaps our own poor decisions. Even if they did, it's only because God permits it, and He has a higher purpose for whatever financial problems we face.
2) this excessive detail about specific demons that do specific things, his telling people to appeal to Our Lady of Sorrows to discover which demons are afflicting us, suggesting that if we address them by name, then somehow our prayers our more "powerful" ... as if we can't simply ask Our Lady to handle ANY such demons for us, whatever they might be. This smacks a bit of superstition.
3) mention of how he tries to interrogate demons during exorcisms (which I always thought had been forbidden)
All of this leads to a very unhealthy curiosity about and engagement with demonic forces that is incredibly dangerous that could actually lure people into engaging with these forces. Dimond Brothers make some good points about why the demons do things like hauntings and poltergeist types of activities. It's because they're luring people in to attempt to engage with the demonic spirit, which then in turn opens the door for the demons to inject themselves more directly into their lives.
It just takes one small mis-step in citing these deliverance prayers, where you're directly addressing demons, to slip up and invite them in to more direct engagement.
We go to God, Our Lord, Our Blessed Mother, St. Michael and our Guardian Angels.
Oh, by the way, speaking of our authority over our wives and our children. I have actually leverged this authority in prayer while addressing my guardian angel and the guardian angels of my wife and my children. I "command" / "bid" THEM by the authority I have over them to keep the demonic forces away. I bid my guardian angel to work with the others to remind them of my authority, which is the authority of God, and to enforce that authority against the demons. THIS is a correct leveraging of authority, since the angels DO in fact recognize that our authority is God's and will infallibly obey such commands, not because of ourselves, but because of God's authority that He has communicated to us. Meanwhile, the entire reason that Satan and the other devils are demand is because they REFUSED to submit to God. So by themselves, they're not particularly inclined to respect the God-given auhority we have over our wives and chldren. It's only because God FORCES them to obey that they obey at all. And so we need to ask God and Our Lady and the angels to enforce this authority.
We see even in exorcisms where the Church's authority is being applied that the demons do not always respond, and at least do not respond immediately. Exorcisms often drag on for long periods of time. Otherwise, why wouldn't they obey immediately? So if they do not comply with the Church's very autority, why would they comply with my lesser authority over my wife and my children. Even in exorcisms, their immediate response might be to escalate the situation and increase the attacks. As an exorcist, Father Ripperger really should know that. There's the story where Our Lord's disciples could not cast out demons, despite attempting to exorcise them in His Name. Our Lord attributed this to 1) lack of faith and 2) that some types of demons (an interesting question) can only be cast out through fasting. Why is that if just a simple exertion of authority suffices? We could add fasting to our prayers to Our Lord and Our Lady in this regard.
There's just way too much that's problematic with Father Ripperger's approach. I'd prefer to speak to my Guardian Angel, to my family's Guardian Angelts, to St. Michael, and above all to Our Blessed Mother, the Terror of Demons ... than to be constantly thinking about and talking to demons.
Laus, you persist in spewing false accusations one after another and even repeating them at times.
You are either doing it out of ignorance or denial. I'm not using ignorance in a derogatory sense but rather in the sense that you have not read what Fr Ripperger actually says. The part of your post I bolded is an example. He states the opposite in Dominion, giving many examples. And you would be in denial if you have read Dominion and refused to concede your gut feelings are dead wrong.
Once again you are voicing your opinion of the prayers in question based on your gut feelings and emotions. Fr Ripperger doesn't go by his feelings and emotions. Actually that is one of his criticisms of the NO modernists. He is an orthodox theologian who also happens to be proficient in psychology. His works/writing are conclusions, not opinions. He has spent years researching and reading books he has access to that you and I don't even realize exist.
As an exorcist he offers catechesis on spiritual warfare that laity aren't used to. And when we hear such it's easy to question it. I have acknowledged more than once on this thread that is certainly understandable. Nevertheless he backs up everything he offers with citations galore. And I cannot keep posting extensive text of his book Dominion without flirting with copyright issues.
If you want to understand why he concludes what he does, acquire a copy of Dominion. If you have no intention of doing that go ahead and persist in erroneous claims about this priest. I can't control that but honestly, you can save your keystrokes for someone else moving forward because I'm done with it. Frankly, if it's your way or no way, no way is fine with me.
Pax
-
Does he list citations; book and page numbers?
If he lists St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus, what is the citation?
Where is the proof that deliverance prayers have a history of use by the laity?
Yes, he cites support for everything he concludes. Many pages of Dominion have more space taking up by the citations than his actual text. Here are the first three pages of them in chapter 1 Angelology
-
Never mind Ripperger's quotation of scripture.
Where is the quotation of other authorities giving such an explanation?
Not "he said, she said", but quoting works and page numbers of past authorities expounding on this?
Not paraphrasing words either, but actually sources?
St Alphonsus : Ripperger cites from Theologia Moralis
Aquinas : the Summa and Thomae Aquinatis Opera Omnia
Many others.
Page numbers and such are there but often are on previous pages before his conclusion. It will take some time to get the exact page numbers cited as far as the ones specific to the actual Adjuration prayers. As far as quotes from the sources that use the word binding I don't see one yet. I'm just flipping through the chapter on Structure of Authority so far. I can see he's very precise in explaining whom laity have authority to use these prayers for though. Namely ourselves and immediate family. And never publicly in assemblies as some Protestants do.
-
None of those screenshots has any bearing whatsoever on the question at hand. He's merely citing St. Thomas explaining that angels and demons are spiritual and immaterial beings. What does that have to do with the laity performing exorcisms by casting out demons and directly addressing them?
-
None of those screenshots has any bearing whatsoever on the question at hand. He's merely citing St. Thomas explaining that angels and demons are spiritual and immaterial beings. What does that have to do with the laity performing exorcisms by casting out demons and directly addressing them?
It has nothing to do with Laity performing exorcisms. And to assert Fr Ripperger encourages Laity to do so is a blatant lie. You may convince those who happen to check out this thread and have never actually held one of his books in their hands or watched any of his talks on video. But those of us who have actually heard him speak and read what he writes on the topic know better.
Who do you think you are pleasing with these false accusations ? Our Lord or Satan ?
-
I purchased a hardcover copy of Dominion: The Nature of Diabolic Warfare
I should have it within 3 weeks.
Seems to be a print on demand title.
I am particularly interested in going through Chapter 4: Structure of Authority.
-
Having read Dominion, I continue to work through "The Introduction to the Science of Mental Health." Much to digest but definitely worth it.
-
I purchased a hardcover copy of Dominion: The Nature of Diabolic Warfare
I should have it within 3 weeks.
Seems to be a print on demand title.
I am particularly interested in going through Chapter 4: Structure of Authority.
Good deal. I hope you find it informative !
-
Having read Dominion, I continue to work through "The Introduction to the Science of Mental Health." Much to digest but definitely worth it.
I think I'll get a copy of Introduction to the Science of Mental Health as well. I should perhaps read it before Dominion.
-
And to assert Fr Ripperger encourages Laity to do so is a blatant lie.
YOU have been exposed for lying, claiming that there's no direct address to demons in Father Ripperger's book on deliverance prayers.
Yes, casting out a demon is an EXORCISM. It is not a MAJOR, but exorcism nonetheless. When the laity are encouraged to say prayers along the lines of, "I cast you out...", "I expel you..." those are in fact exorcisms. You have been repeatedly caught lying here while shilling for Ripperger.
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05709a.htm
Exorcism is (1) the act of driving out, or warding off, demons, or evil spirits, from persons, places, or things, which are believed to be possessed or infested by them, or are liable to become victims or instruments of their malice; (2) the means employed for this purpose, especially the solemn and authoritative adjuration of the demon, in the name of God, or any of the higher power in which he is subject.
-
You may convince those who happen to check out this thread and have never actually held one of his books in their hands or watched any of his talks on video. But those of us who have actually heard him speak and read what he writes on the topic know better.
Who do you think you are pleasing with these false accusations ? Our Lord or Satan ?
You are a malicious liar. I POSTED pictures of pages form his book to back up what I said. You on the other hand lied about its contents and were exposed. I have heard him speak many times, and you are an ignorant buffoon ... for there's nothing he's ever said that provides a defense against the allegations that these prayers of his are absolutely without Traditional foundation and are extremely dangerous for the faithful to use.
I'm still waiting for your citation from Tradition to back up your lie that Father's approach is backed up by the Fathers, Doctors, saints, and theologians. There isn't any or otherwise you would have produced it by now.
There are no false accusations here, and it is you who are serving Satan by promoting this garbage. You should change your forum name to FallenAngels rather than HolyAngels.
I told you that I would reconsider my problems with these prayers if you could provide a single citation from a reputable pre-Vatican II source, particularly a Pope, a Doctor, a saint, or a Church Fathers. None has been forthcoming. Instead you post trash about how angels are immaterial. Duh, everybody knows that. That has absolutely nothing to do with Father Ripperger's deliverence prayers.
-
I think I'll get a copy of Introduction to the Science of Mental Health as well.
That might be a worthwhile book for you.
-
Actually, until Yeti made some good points on this thread, I had actually not had much of an opinion one way or another about Father Ripperger's demonology. I generally respected him and praised him as a "strong Thomist" (you can look at my posting history here). There was, however, a nagging feeling that something was "off" about his talks regarding demons and deliverance, etc.
Then Yeti made the point that there's no Traditional precedent for laity directly addressing demons. To which you responded that there's no such address in Father Ripperger's book. So I picked up the book, and sure enough, you were lying. It's right there in black and white. For someone who has repeatedly claimed to be so knowledgeable about Father Ripperger's books and his talks, this exposes your as a liar, either about Father Ripperger's books or about your intimate knowledge of them.
Then I began attempting to research whether there was any Traditional precedent for this, and found quite the opposite, that it's dangerous for laity to directly engage with and address demons.
Yeti was absolutely right.
-
If you want to join Pablo's lay exorcist troupe, be my guest. I in turn will pray to the Angels and Our Blessed Mother and the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and know that the only thing I am capable of casting out is the garbage on Friday mornings.
You need to be honest with yourself. You have been snookered by the fact that Father Ripperger offers the Tridentine Mass, and your perception that his approach to exorcism and demonology is Traditional is based on nothing other than Father offering the Tridentine Mass, and his regular citation of St. Thomas and Traditional sources ... on other subjects. I have yet to see anything on the subject in dispute here. If Tradition is replete with evidence and proof, as you claim, do not post again promoting this extremely dangerous approach until you have produced at least one sample of this mountain of evidence you claim exists.
-
I see this thread is still going.
One thing that I want to add which really put me off of Chad Ripperger is his constant revelation of what demons tell him through the course of an exorcism. It borders on divination, rather than just pure information for its own sake. There was one such interview on "Fr." Heilman's Grace Force podcast where Ripperger was talking about Satan's power coming to an end soon or something. And it struck me as very questionable, as why should we care what a demon reveals during the course of an exorcism. Yes, I know that the priest can command them to reveal things in the Name of Christ, but I don't believe making a habit of revealing this information to laity is of any benefit and serves to fuel vain curiosity and superstition, rather than true devotion.
I see a necessity to prove the existence of the demonic and preternatural to today's jaded masses, but it goes beyond that when you're revealing interesting nuggets of information to bolster your trad cred. I get this same impression reading the sensationalized Warren novels or Fr. Martin's book on exorcisms. Sure, it can be read as a form of Catholic entertainment, but it should not be viewed with an end toward puffing up one's knowledge about spiritual warfare and the demonic. And on top of that, shows like Ghost Adventures or Ghost Hunters have done much to destroy a Catholic method of combating the preternatural. When I've watched this stuff in the past, I always point out to my wife that the best thing they could've done is to ignore the sounds, not open doors to these principalities and powers.
I will repeat, the best means to combat the Devil is to ignore him when temptation arises and pray simple prayers to steady oneself. The method of the Carmelites, specifically St. John of the Cross, pertaining to visions is to ignore them because the source is unknown, the same goes for this type of phenomena.
-
I see this thread is still going.
One thing that I want to add which really put me off of Chad Ripperger is his constant revelation of what demons tell him through the course of an exorcism. It borders on divination, rather than just pure information for its own sake. There was one such interview on "Fr." Heilman's Grace Force podcast where Ripperger was talking about Satan's power coming to an end soon or something. And it struck me as very questionable, as why should we care what a demon reveals during the course of an exorcism. Yes, I know that the priest can command them to reveal things in the Name of Christ, but I don't believe making a habit of revealing this information to laity is of any benefit and serves to fuel vain curiosity and superstition, rather than true devotion.
I see a necessity to prove the existence of the demonic and preternatural to today's jaded masses, but it goes beyond that when you're revealing interesting nuggets of information to bolster your trad cred. I get this same impression reading the sensationalized Warren novels or Fr. Martin's book on exorcisms. Sure, it can be read as a form of Catholic entertainment, but it should not be viewed with an end toward puffing up one's knowledge about spiritual warfare and the demonic. And on top of that, shows like Ghost Adventures or Ghost Hunters have done much to destroy a Catholic method of combating the preternatural. When I've watched this stuff in the past, I always point out to my wife that the best thing they could've done is to ignore the sounds, not open doors to these principalities and powers.
I will repeat, the best means to combat the Devil is to ignore him when temptation arises and pray simple prayers to steady oneself. The method of the Carmelites, specifically St. John of the Cross, pertaining to visions is to ignore them because the source is unknown, the same goes for this type of phenomena.
Here is what he says about ignoring demons fwiw.
"There tends to be two extremes in relation to demons. The first is never paying any attention to them whatsoever, even when they rear their heads. There, is a mindset which is fundamentally flawed that if one simply ignores the demons, they will leave him alone. All this mindset does is create a spiritual blindness in relationship to the activity of the demons, and demons take advantage of the wild ignorance of the individual. This is contrary to the vigilance which St Peter says we are to have which is rooted in the recognition, again as Saint Peter observes, that the devil is like a roaring lion going around seeking someone to devour. He is constantly on the prowl and seeking to cause damage and destruction in the lives of human beings.
The second extreme consists of the person seeing a demon under every rock, so to speak. The person focuses on trying to find and root out diabolic activity. In this particular approach, the focus shifts from God to demons, and demons are more than happy to have one's attention as long as it is not on God, since their general principle is "anything but God". As the saying goes, "if you look for demons, they will find you".
That seems fairly sound imo. Even if one feels uncomfortable with binding prayers, one should still acknowledge the demon's presence if they sense it, and always keep in mind we are indeed in a spiritual warfare in this world.
Are binding prayers the only recourse ? No, the short form St Michael prayer, rosary, etc. are effiacious.
As are binding prayers. They are just more focused, or precise in what they ask. And that is where Authority and the restrictions per the Church enter the equation. Fr Ripperger is adamant in pointing this out, as retaliation is also in the equation.
-
One thing that I want to add which really put me off of Chad Ripperger is his constant revelation of what demons tell him through the course of an exorcism. It borders on divination, rather than just pure information for its own sake. There was one such interview on "Fr." Heilman's Grace Force podcast where Ripperger was talking about Satan's power coming to an end soon or something. And it struck me as very questionable, as why should we care what a demon reveals during the course of an exorcism.
Yikes! You've got to be kidding me. I looked in the Rituale Romanum (https://archive.org/details/RitualeRomanum/page/n341/mode/2up) to see what the Church actually tells to exorcists, and it's very much the opposite:
5. Let the priest be aware what arts and deceptions the devils use to deceive the exorcist; for they often answer many things deceitfully ...
14. Let the exorcist not waste time in much conversation or idle and curious questions, especially about future or hidden things that have no relevance to his task; but let him command the unclean spirit to be silent, and only respond to what he is asked; and let him not believe it if the demon pretends to be the soul of a saint, or the dead, or a good angel.
15. However, there are necessary questions, such as regarding the number and names of the possessing spirits, the time they entered the person, why they did so, and other similar things. But the exorcist must shut down the other idle things, laughter, and irrelevancies of the demon, or despise them entirely. And he must warn the bystanders, who must be very few to begin with, not to pay attention to these things, nor ask the possessed person anything themselves; but rather to pray humbly and perseveringly to God for the possessed person.
If Fr. Ripperger were a real exorcist, he would certainly have read these things in the section on exorcisms in the Ritual. :facepalm:
-
I've objected also to his references to interrogating demons during exorcisms. If demons are known for anything, it's the fact that they LIE !
-
Here is what he says about ignoring demons fwiw.
"There tends to be two extremes in relation to demons. The first is never paying any attention to them whatsoever, even when they rear their heads. There, is a mindset which is fundamentally flawed that if one simply ignores the demons, they will leave him alone. All this mindset does is create a spiritual blindness in relationship to the activity of the demons, and demons take advantage of the wild ignorance of the individual. This is contrary to the vigilance which St Peter says we are to have which is rooted in the recognition, again as Saint Peter observes, that the devil is like a roaring lion going around seeking someone to devour. He is constantly on the prowl and seeking to cause damage and destruction in the lives of human beings.
The second extreme consists of the person seeing a demon under every rock, so to speak. The person focuses on trying to find and root out diabolic activity. In this particular approach, the focus shifts from God to demons, and demons are more than happy to have one's attention as long as it is not on God, since their general principle is "anything but God". As the saying goes, "if you look for demons, they will find you".
That seems fairly sound imo. Even if one feels uncomfortable with binding prayers, one should still acknowledge the demon's presence if they sense it, and always keep in mind we are indeed in a spiritual warfare in this world.
Nah, it's completely unsound ... for two reasons. Firstly, Father Ripperger clearly falls into the latter extreme. His talks clearly suggest that demons are involved in nearly everything. He errs to that extreme. Demons are responsible for financial problems. Demons cause hiccups. They're everywhere ... if you listen to him speak. Secondly, he's wrong by painting this false dichotomy. It is not "ignorance" or lack of belief in demonic activity to ignore them. It is to follow the prudent advice of St. Francis des Sales above, to ignore them so that they do not disturb our peace of soul, simply to have faith in God that they can only do what HE allows them to do. To appeal to God, Our Lady, and the saints, and to not confront them directly as if we have some kind of power or authority over them ... that is the Catholic balance between these two extremes.
-
I will repeat, the best means to combat the Devil is to ignore him when temptation arises and pray simple prayers to steady oneself. The method of the Carmelites, specifically St. John of the Cross, pertaining to visions is to ignore them because the source is unknown, the same goes for this type of phenomena.
THIS^^^. This is not, as Father Ripperger implies with is false dichotomy (cited by HA above), to be ignorant or to not believe that they are around trying to wreck souls, but, rather, it is to have confidence in God that He is in control. We turn to God if we are bothered by demons, and do not instead turn to the demons to take them head on and trying to cast them out and expel them, i.e. to exorcise them ourselves.
-
YOU have been exposed for lying, claiming that there's no direct address to demons in Father Ripperger's book on deliverance prayers.
Yes, casting out a demon is an EXORCISM. It is not a MAJOR, but exorcism nonetheless. When the laity are encouraged to say prayers along the lines of, "I cast you out...", "I expel you..." those are in fact exorcisms. You have been repeatedly caught lying here while shilling for Ripperger.
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05709a.htm
Again, I see the concern about the commanding of demons implied by those words. But Ripperger makes it clear we layman aren't expelling demons on our own. If we pray such prayers within the bounds of the limits of authority we do have and under the restrictions we are subject to in that regard, we are not playing exorcist so to speak. Jesus, Mary, St Michael : they are the ones kicking the demon's butts.
I've been lax in praying the Auxilium Christianorum prayers the last 10 days or so and I've noticed an increase in temptation, irritability, etc. Whether the demons are coming at me or it's simply due to a decrease in prayer routine in general I can't say. (I have been praying the staple prayers though) But I'm resuming the AC prayers today and if I notice a decrease in temptation and all that will perhaps indicate I should be more diligent in praying the AC prayers moving forward.
Anyhow, it seems Ripperger promotes the Virtues, Marian devotion, and the like far more than the prayers and question. I don't think he's on a mission to have us replace our traditional prayers and devotions with deliverance prayers and binding prayers. He's just making us aware of them as a means to up our game in spiritual warfare while making it clear we understand the authority and restrictions we need to understand before praying them.
-
If you want to join Pablo's lay exorcist troupe, be my guest. I in turn will pray to the Angels and Our Blessed Mother and the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and know that the only thing I am capable of casting out is the garbage on Friday mornings.
You need to be honest with yourself. You have been snookered by the fact that Father Ripperger offers the Tridentine Mass, and your perception that his approach to exorcism and demonology is Traditional is based on nothing other than Father offering the Tridentine Mass, and his regular citation of St. Thomas and Traditional sources ... on other subjects. I have yet to see anything on the subject in dispute here. If Tradition is replete with evidence and proof, as you claim, do not post again promoting this extremely dangerous approach until you have produced at least one sample of this mountain of evidence you claim exists.
I have no idea who Pablo is.
-
None of those screenshots has any bearing whatsoever on the question at hand. He's merely citing St. Thomas explaining that angels and demons are spiritual and immaterial beings. What does that have to do with the laity performing exorcisms by casting out demons and directly addressing them?
Those images were an example and I said they were from the Chapter of Angelology.
-
I purchased a hardcover copy of Dominion: The Nature of Diabolic Warfare
I should have it within 3 weeks.
Seems to be a print on demand title.
I am particularly interested in going through Chapter 4: Structure of Authority.
That chapter is where you'll see why I accept Laymen can pray the prayers in question with an understanding of what one's limits of authority are. And you'll also see an in depth explanation of Ripperger's conclusions.
You may disagree with him, or will agree, but at least you will see why he has reached his conclusion.
I'm looking forward to your thoughts on it.
-
Having read Dominion, I continue to work through "The Introduction to the Science of Mental Health." Much to digest but definitely worth it.
What are your thoughts on the chapter Structure of Authority ?
-
Those images were an example and I said they were from the Chapter of Angelology.
Still waiting for proof of your allegation that Ripperger's exhortation for the laity to perform exorcisms is Traditional.
-
What are your thoughts on the chapter Structure of Authority ?
Firstly, I find it very logical. It clearly shows the boundaries wherein the devil and his demons can act, and how the authority structure is important on how to fight the diabolic. It is good to have laid out the traditional structure of the family, to show a)the right order within the family unit and b) how that will further elucidate the daily means of spiritual combat.
As for Father Ripperger, there are indeed problem areas. One major one is his association with the Novus Ordo Mass. He could not criticize it while he was in the FSSP and that lack carries into his present ministry. The increased lack of efficacy of exorcisms has to be tied in with ongoing celebration of the Bogus NoNo by exorcists. Despite the solid philosophy and theology in the texts Dominion and the one on mental health, how one can logically remain in the conciliar church is a bit baffling. That the ecclesial structure of authority was destroyed in Vatican II would explain if nothing else how the demonic has been given the power over society and the structures of the conciliar church.
I take the good from Father R's texts, and through judicious discernment - as I have received formal philosophical and theological education - question the remainder to see if it be ill or no.:cowboy:
-
As for Father Ripperger, there are indeed problem areas. One major one is his association with the Novus Ordo Mass. He could not criticize it while he was in the FSSP and that lack carries into his present ministry. The increased lack of efficacy of exorcisms has to be tied in with ongoing celebration of the Bogus NoNo by exorcists.
Yes. I recall one talk he gave about the various demonic attacks on Traditional Catholics, and he was very close to saying that to criticize the Novus Ordo and their Modernism and Modernistic practices is a sin/fault that the demons entice Catholics into. I'll have to look that up again at some point. He's not wrong that there could be temptations to pride or being "holier than though," a Pharisaical condescension toward Novus Ordites, but there's an incredibly fine line there between that and legitimate criticisms of the Conciliar Church. I imagine that he would consider it diabolical to break from the Conciliar Church and become associated with SSPX or, even worse (in his mind), sedevacantists.
-
OK, here it is ...
https://onepeterfive.com/the-gnosticism-affecting-traditionalism/
-
From that sermon:
What's a generational spirit? It's one in which, if parents commit particular kinds of sins, they open the door to demons inserting themselves into their family life, and it gets passed from generation to generation.
If you didn't know where this quote came from, and you were asked if it more likely came from St. Alphonsus or from a Harry Potter novel, which would you think was more likely, apart from how it contains the word "sin"?
And at the risk of wasting my breath, can anyone find the term "generational spirit" in any book before Vatican 2?
There are a lot of really odd things in that sermon just from a cursory listen; in fact, almost everything I heard in there was strange. He condemns trads for looking down on people who go to the Novus Ordo. While we certainly shouldn't look down on anyone, and should accept anything we have as coming from God, his condemnation of this implies that there's nothing wrong with going to the Novus Ordo, which is outrageous.
Another odd thing he says is that trads are plagued by the sin of impurity. While everyone is certainly plagued with this sin, trads are the only group in the world that actually do practice the virtue of purity to a large extent, and certainly far more than any other demographic in existence, including Novus Ordo adherents. It's like condemning Quakers for being belligerent, or Mormons for being drunks, or Muslims for being rationalists. The criticism is false and absurd.
-
Firstly, I find it very logical. It clearly shows the boundaries wherein the devil and his demons can act, and how the authority structure is important on how to fight the diabolic. It is good to have laid out the traditional structure of the family, to show a)the right order within the family unit and b) how that will further elucidate the daily means of spiritual combat.
As for Father Ripperger, there are indeed problem areas. One major one is his association with the Novus Ordo Mass. He could not criticize it while he was in the FSSP and that lack carries into his present ministry. The increased lack of efficacy of exorcisms has to be tied in with ongoing celebration of the Bogus NoNo by exorcists. Despite the solid philosophy and theology in the texts Dominion and the one on mental health, how one can logically remain in the conciliar church is a bit baffling. That the ecclesial structure of authority was destroyed in Vatican II would explain if nothing else how the demonic has been given the power over society and the structures of the conciliar church.
I take the good from Father R's texts, and through judicious discernment - as I have received formal philosophical and theological education - question the remainder to see if it be ill or no.:cowboy:
Thank you for your thoughts on it.
I'm in agreement about the NO. All of it.
-
Still waiting for proof of your allegation that Ripperger's exhortation for the laity to perform exorcisms is Traditional.
Difficult for Holy Angels to provide proof of your strawman.
Rather the burden is on you to demonstrate that Father Ripperger ever did any such thing.
It has been repeatedly proven that he idd not do any such thing.
-
Firstly, I find it very logical. It clearly shows the boundaries wherein the devil and his demons can act, and how the authority structure is important on how to fight the diabolic. It is good to have laid out the traditional structure of the family, to show a)the right order within the family unit and b) how that will further elucidate the daily means of spiritual combat.
As for Father Ripperger, there are indeed problem areas. One major one is his association with the Novus Ordo Mass. He could not criticize it while he was in the FSSP and that lack carries into his present ministry. The increased lack of efficacy of exorcisms has to be tied in with ongoing celebration of the Bogus NoNo by exorcists. Despite the solid philosophy and theology in the texts Dominion and the one on mental health, how one can logically remain in the conciliar church is a bit baffling. That the ecclesial structure of authority was destroyed in Vatican II would explain if nothing else how the demonic has been given the power over society and the structures of the conciliar church.
I take the good from Father R's texts, and through judicious discernment - as I have received formal philosophical and theological education - question the remainder to see if it be ill or no.:cowboy:
Yes I agree that it is baffling unless you understand that we are in time of diabolical disorientation. Father Ripperger has explained that in one difficult exorcism, the demons challenged him asking "Under whose immediate authority to you cast us out?" Of course we all know that Our Savior is the ultimate authority, however given the hierarchal structure of the Church, the question regarded immediate authority.
Father Ripperger answered "under the authority of Bishop ____."
The demon immediately left.
-
I guess the demons accept the questionable episcopal consecrations?
-
I guess the demons accept the questionable episcopal consecrations?
As an exorcist, I think his understanding is that all angels, including fallen ones, recognize that authority is hierarchical.
If an exorcist is not under the authority of his local Bishop, he is under he own authority, which is to say NO authority.
-
Difficult for Holy Angels to provide proof of your strawman.
Rather the burden is on you to demonstrate that Father Ripperger ever did any such thing.
It has been repeatedly proven that he idd not do any such thing.
Bovine excrement. Strawman? You clearly don't know what that term means.
I have zero burden whatsoever. I'm not encouraging laity to perform exorcisms. Ripperger is. And FallenAngels is also promoting it. Burden of proof is squarely on them to justify it.
And you too are a liar. I have posted pictures of pages from his book demonstrating exactly what I asserted. He has prayers for the laity to directly address demons and command them, cast them out, etc.
FallenAngels lied claiming that none of the prayers in Ripperger's book have the laity directly addressing demons. Then he lied claiming that there's backing for this practice in the Church Fathers, Doctors, saints, and theologians. Should be a relatively simple thing then to produce just a single one of them.
Still waiting ...
-
Another odd thing he says is that trads are plagued by the sin of impurity. While everyone is certainly plagued with this sin, trads are the only group in the world that actually do practice the virtue of purity to a large extent, and certainly far more than any other demographic in existence, including Novus Ordo adherents. It's like condemning Quakers for being belligerent, or Mormons for being drunks, or Muslims for being rationalists. The criticism is false and absurd.
I could on for an hour about that sermon. It's a hot mess. Of course, some / many Trads are afflicted with sins of impurity ... as the world is absolutely awash with impurity and temptations against purity. But his implication that it's perhaps even more prevalent among Trads is ludicrous (and completely anecdotal). There's the simple inconvenient fact that the Novus Ordites simply DO NOT GO TO CONFESSION. Parishes of 10,000 near me will be lucky to have 3 people in the Confessional line for a 30-minute window on Saturday afternoon ... and meanwhile, you have every single person prance up to Holy Communion.
Of course we should avoid the pride of thinking ourselves superior for being Trads, and yet criticism of the Conciliar Church, and criticism of their Modernist Magisterium ... that's a diabolical fault? I should say, rather, that his refusal to be critical of the Conciliar Church is doing Satan's work.
And then, while criticizing Trads for impurity out the one side of his mouth, out of the other he criticizes them for trying to separate themselves from the world. It is in fact largely because Trads compromise with the world that they fall into sins of impurity.
He creates an extremely uncharitable caricature of Trads that is not unlike that of Bergoglio. There's nothing wrong with charitably warning Traditional Catholics to avoid sins of pride, but he basically painted Traditional Catholics as a pack of hypocritical Pharisees who are arrogantly rejecting the Catholic Magisterium. In fact, while speaking of pride, he takes an incredibly arrogant and condescending attitude against Traditional Catholics. His tone is not one of charitable and constructive criticism, but of denunciation ... very similar to how Bergolgio arrogantly excoriates everyone else for pride while proclaiming himself to be a paragon of humility.
-
I guess the demons accept the questionable episcopal consecrations?
Of course. Ripperger believes they're valid, perhaps because the demons told him as much.
-
With his term Gnosticism, (completely misused, by the way), he's denouncing Traditional Catholics for believing that they actually adhere to true Catholicism, and denounces their rejection of the Conciliar Church as having departed from the truth. There's an implied relativism there, perfectly in tune with the spirit of Vatican II, where he's effectively asserting that the Conciliar Church has as much a claim to the truth as Traditional Catholics do.
-
Father Ripperger answered "under the authority of Bishop ____."
The demon immediately left.
Diabolical ruse if I ever saw one. If the demons wanted to promote the notion that the Conciliar "bishops", 98% of whom are heretics and whose episcopal consecrations are almost certainly invalid, there's no better way to do it than by pretending to flee from the "authority of the Bishop". It's actually pathetically transparent. Why else would the demon ask, "Under whose authority do you cast us out?" except for the purpose of setting up this ruse? Demon knew that Ripperger was acting on behalf of the Conciliar bishop. He asked this question precisely to elicit Ripperger's response and then to feign leaving in fear of said authority, precisely to persuade people that Conciliar "bishops" are legitimate and Catholic.
It's rather pathetic that Ripperger was taken in by this ruse. And this is why the Traditional Rite, as cited above, bids that priests not engage with the demons in this manner. Because, well ..., demons LIE, and they deceive. So if in fact the Conciliar bishops are a bunch of heretics outside the Church, that the devil wants to have people believe represent the true Church (instead of recognizing it for the diabolical counterfeit that it is), what better way to perpetuate that idea than by playing Ripperger this way ... and then have him repeat this story to the faithful on his celebrity exorcist tours? Oh, well, we see the demons acknowledging that the Conciliar hierarchy is the true hierarchy, so we should stay in our Conciliar parish and not become one of these schismatic Trads who operate outside the bishop's "authority" that is feared by the demons ... with the result that these Catholic continue to attend NO Masses that are offensive to God, harmful to faith, and harmful to their souls, along with receiving doubtful Sacraments.
BTW, I've known people who wrote to him asking for some guidance or help, falsely believing him to be a dedicated Traditional Catholic, and some were simply ignored, and others blown off with a message akin to, "go see your local [Modernist Novus Ordo] bishops [who in most cases doesn't even believe in the existence of demons]."
Ripperger is a pawn of the devil and is doing the devil's bidding here.
-
There's also this notice on the website that's completely inappropriate:
Although the videos on the Sensus Fidelium YouTube channel are not official works of Fr. Ripperger, they are created using his original content. As such, I offer the standard reminder: All of Fr. Ripperger’s files are offered as PenanceWare, which require that you do one of the following if you listen to or watch them:
- donate $1.00 via Father’s Paypal (https://www.paypal.com/donate/?token=hSfthZA3Dd-29aDvTspbPtbQNFPtr0N2jdJbrvzkF5Jch-oucXozStqXHXiyJHhsUJQ1H0&country.x=US&locale.x=US), which supports his work.
- offer up a decade of the Rosary, or
- perform some form of penance for the intentions of Fr. Ripperger (for each individual media file).
The same rule applies if you copy and distribute to friends.
So now Ripperger's sermons require some form of payment to listen to? When it's his obligation as a priest to nourish the faithful? If one receives benefit from his sermons, then they probably SHOULD pray for him out of gratitude, but setting up this "PenanceWare" structure smacks of simony.
Also, in the above sermons, Ripperger contradicts himself. At first he says that God allows Trads to fall into sins of purity in order to humble them, and then he goes on about how it's a generational demonic spirit. So is it God or the demon behind the impurity?
He makes the outrageous statement that impurity is EVERY BIT AS BAD among Trads as among the Conciliars, and probably worse. That's a bald-faced lie. Among the Conciliars, the vast majority of them don't even consider impurity to be a sin in the first place. They don't go to Confession at all. Meanwhile, most Trads I know fight hard against impurity, and overall they are FAR MORE PURE than their Conciliar counterparts.
When Trads do succuмb to impurity, it's because they have compromised with a world that is awash in impurity ... and so out of the other side of his mouth, he criticizes them for staying away from the world when they should be going out into the world, and he calls that their "mission". Thus he's adopting the Vatican II spirit of opening the windows to the world ... which is completely taken over by Satan. How did that work out for the Conciliar Church?
"We have to stop detracting against the Magisterium." There's no detraction, Ripperger ... these Conciliar bishops are promoting a false religion and wholesale heresy.
At one point he criticizes as "clearly demonic" the criticism of the Conciliar Church. No, it's Ripperger who's doing Satan's work.
He paints an ugly, mean-spirited, uncharitable caricature of Traditional Catholics.
-
He creates an extremely uncharitable caricature of Trads that is not unlike that of Bergoglio.
I’m so glad you and Yeti brought this up! That is the sermon that I heard and I was so shocked that this flies w/everyone. His audience is traditional or at least conservative Catholic, right? I really felt like this broke the seal of confession to smear a minority of people, claiming they’re commonly committing sins of impurity and that you know about this through hearing their Confessions? I don’t see how it doesn’t break the seal. And I think the man is a blatant liar. I’d never read his books, he is no bueno.
-
There's also this notice on the website that's completely inappropriate:
So now Ripperger's sermons require some form of payment to listen to? When it's his obligation as a priest to nourish the faithful? If one receives benefit from his sermons, then they probably SHOULD pray for him out of gratitude, but setting up this "PenanceWare" structure smacks of simony.
Also, in the above sermons, Ripperger contradicts himself. At first he says that God allows Trads to fall into sins of purity in order to humble them, and then he goes on about how it's a generational demonic spirit. So is it God or the demon behind the impurity?
He makes the outrageous statement that impurity is EVERY BIT AS BAD among Trads as among the Conciliars, and probably worse. That's a bald-faced lie. Among the Conciliars, the vast majority of them don't even consider impurity to be a sin in the first place. They don't go to Confession at all. Meanwhile, most Trads I know fight hard against impurity, and overall they are FAR MORE PURE than their Conciliar counterparts.
When Trads do succuмb to impurity, it's because they have compromised with a world that is awash in impurity ... and so out of the other side of his mouth, he criticizes them for staying away from the world when they should be going out into the world, and he calls that their "mission". Thus he's adopting the Vatican II spirit of opening the windows to the world ... which is completely taken over by Satan. How did that work out for the Conciliar Church?
"We have to stop detracting against the Magisterium." There's no detraction, Ripperger ... these Conciliar bishops are promoting a false religion and wholesale heresy.
At one point he criticizes as "clearly demonic" the criticism of the Conciliar Church. No, it's Ripperger who's doing Satan's work.
He paints an ugly, mean-spirited, uncharitable caricature of Traditional Catholics.
What's wrong with offering up a rosary ?
-
What's wrong with offering up a rosary ?
Yeah, I'd say we would be obligated by charity to pray he converts to the traditional Catholic Faith.
-
Yeah, I'd say we would be obligated by charity to pray he converts to the traditional Catholic Faith.
No qualms about that but my point is the 1.00 donation is optional.
-
No qualms about that but my point is the 1.00 donation is optional.
Agreed.
-
Bovine excrement. Strawman? You clearly don't know what that term means.
I have zero burden whatsoever. I'm not encouraging laity to perform exorcisms. Ripperger is. And FallenAngels is also promoting it. Burden of proof is squarely on them to justify it.
And you too are a liar. I have posted pictures of pages from his book demonstrating exactly what I asserted. He has prayers for the laity to directly address demons and command them, cast them out, etc.
FallenAngels lied claiming that none of the prayers in Ripperger's book have the laity directly addressing demons. Then he lied claiming that there's backing for this practice in the Church Fathers, Doctors, saints, and theologians. Should be a relatively simple thing then to produce just a single one of them.
Still waiting ...
Thank you for branding me one of the minions of Satan lol. I don't get that enough.
Jesus himself rebuked his disciples when they came to him whining about coming upon those casting out demons.
The photo I posted with the instructions for use of the "Exorcism against Satan and the rebellious angels" by Pope Leo states the laity can use the prayer. At the end of the prayer there is an Imprimatur by + Manuel of Barcelona dated Dec 1931
As early as the third century the minor orders included that of exorcist.
If you are wanting evidence that the church ever authorized solemn exorcism by the laity I doubt it exists. Ripperger never claimed it exists nor did I claim he did. All Deliverance prayers which ask Jesus, Mary, or Michael are not solemn exorcisms.
If you read his chapter on Structure of Authority in Dominion you'll see why he concludes Laity can pray deliverance prayers and binding prayers under certain/precise restrictions. For example, he doesn't/wouldn't condone me praying a deliverance prayer over my next door neighbors meth head son. I would not have authority to do so.
You may not come away seeing it his way, but it's helpful to know exactly what you are rejecting.
-
https://youtu.be/mpJgVAs02Dc
Here is an explanation of what he means by generational spirits fwiw.
-
I’m so glad you and Yeti brought this up! That is the sermon that I heard and I was so shocked that this flies w/everyone. His audience is traditional or at least conservative Catholic, right? I really felt like this broke the seal of confession to smear a minority of people, claiming they’re commonly committing sins of impurity and that you know about this through hearing their Confessions? I don’t see how it doesn’t break the seal. And I think the man is a blatant liar. I’d never read his books, he is no bueno.
That was a smear job against Traditional Catholics just a tad short of Bergoglio's derogatory condemnations. He smears Traditional Catholics and the insists that rejecting the Conciliar "Magisterium" is diabolical. He creates an uncharitable caricature of Traditional Catholics (using "Trads" as a derogatory term). It's a blatant lie that "Trads" are more prone to impurity than the Conciliars. At least Trads CARE about committing sins against purity, whereas the Conciliars justify them, and they rarely confess any of it ... all because they've gone and submitted to their great Conciliar pastors. If he's "heard" more Trad confessions about impurity, that's because "Trads" regularly go to Confession, whereas the Conciliars will have 2 people show up at Confession in a parish of 10,000, and then the next day all but 2 prance up for Holy "Communion" (and the vast majority don't believe in the Real Presence).
Ripperger is in fact doing Satan's work in many respects. It's not unknown for those who arrogantly take on demons to get possessed themselves. For all Ripperger denounces pride, he comes across as arrogant and condescending in his sermons, and he has an arrogant "know-it-all" tone about him. He thinks he has cornered the market on truth and True Catholicism ... sounding just like the "Gnostics" he condemns.
-
Ripperger needs to be exposed, since he's doing a lot of damage, snookering people by pretending to be a Traditional Catholic. Thus people like a couple posters here defend him tooth and nail as being "Traditional" whereas there's absolutely no evidence to back it up. He derides Traditional Catholics, dangerously advises lay people to perform exorcisms, claims that rejection of the Modernist Conciliar Magisterium is diabolical, etc.
Wake up. Ripperger is a con-artist, not a Traditional Catholic, and doing Satan's work while pretending to be doing the opposite. He falls for the tricks of demons (that he was tricked by when he arrogantly engaged with them contrary to Traditional Catholic teaching ... it takes arrogance to engage demons like that), and then spreads their deceit by claiming from the pulpit that the demons flee from the authority of the Modernist heretic Novus Ordo non-bishops. He tries to leverage this also to defend and condone the Protestant bastard Rite "Mass".
He's doing MUCH more damage by posing as a Traditional Catholic. If this stuff was coming from a clown-mass-officiating Conciliar hippie priest, nobody would give it two thoughts, but because he hides behind the smells and bells of Traditional Catholicism (while denouncing it in principle), he's fooling people and leading them into error.
His arrogant, condescending, know-it-all tone also tends to turn weak-minded individuals into his cult-like followers.
Begone, Ripperger.
-
Yes, agree with you on all points. Ripperger does not deserve a following, but some Catholics treat him like a celebrity pastor. It's wrong.
-
Does he list citations; book and page numbers?
If he lists St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus, what is the citation?
Where is the proof that deliverance prayers have a history of use by the laity?
" Indeed to adjure privately is licit to all; solemnly however, only to the Ministers of the church to that which is constituted by and with the express permission of the bishop."
St Alphonsus Theologia Moralis is the work.
Ibid., n. 91 is the citation.
That's on page 144 of Dominion in the chapter on Structure of Authority. Ripperger goes on to explain the limitations of it all. He makes sure the reader doesn't take "Indeed to adjure privately is licit to all.." to mean " there you have it, adjure demons freely".
As he should.
-
" Indeed to adjure privately is licit to all; solemnly however, only to the Ministers of the church to that which is constituted by and with the express permission of the bishop."
St Alphonsus Theologia Moralis is the work.
Ibid., n. 91 is the citation.
Full citation to St. Alphonsus please, not just to "n.91" in Ripperger's book ... which I have no intention of buying. As we saw earlier, your previous "footnote" to St. Thomas was to where he was describing demons as immaterial beings and had no relevance to the actual subject under dispute.
-
Here is the gist of it. Ripperger ,on what St Alphonsus said....
"In other words, the fact that every individual has a right to adjure in relationship to himself and those over whom he has authority does not translate into having authority over all demons afficting all people".
-
Found it. Passage in St. Alponsus condemns Ripperger's promotion of lay exorcism.
I'll lay it out here shortly.
-
Found it. Passage in St. Alponsus condemns Ripperger's promotion of lay exorcism.
I'll lay it out here shortly.
Good deal. Make sure to cite Ripperger promoting Solemn Exorcism by the Laity as well.
:popcorn:
-
Good deal. Make sure to cite Ripperger promoting Solemn Exorcism by the Laity as well.
:popcorn:
^ Down voted ? Lol
Hey, keeping it honest can't hurt can it ?
-
https://books.google.com/books?id=MgBGAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
Starts on Page 173, "APPENDIX -- DE ADJURATIONE" (Appendix by Adjuration)
St. Alphonsus defines adjuration as the invocation of God, of holy things, or of the saints in order to get someone to either do or not do something.
He then makes two distinctions with regard to adjuration.
1) Solemn vs. Private, the former being done by ministers duly appointed by the Church and using the Rites / ceremonies established by the Church, and Private being anything else.
2) Deprecatory vs. Imperative, the first being in the form of a request, and the second a command. He states that for an Adjuration to be able to be "imperative" (in the form of a command), it can only be issued by a superior to those subject to him or by exorcists to demons (as exorcists have authority over demons).
At that point, St. Alphonsus goes into some requirements, i.e. you can't adjure for something bad ("I adjure you to [commit this sin].") or adjure for something to which you have no right in justice ("I adjure you to give me your wallet." -- and that would presumably apply even if you're in a position of authority over someone, but he doesn't go into it).
But here's where Father Ripperger failed to actually read the text, and he fails on BOTH conditions. See paragraph V (5).
"With regard to the adjuration of demons, two things must must here be well noted. 1) That the adjuration must be "imperative" (see above, in the form of a command) and not deprecatory (deprecative)." [I'll come back to point 2 ... which Ripperger also violates.]
So, the conclusion is a very straightforward syllogism between two points above.
1) Imperative Adjurations can only be made by superiors to their subjects and by EXORCISTS TO DEMONS.
2) Adjurations to Demons should only be IMPERATIVE adjurations and not deprecatory (deprecative).
ERGO, QED, Those who are not Exorcists (i.e. have no authority over demons) should NOT be adjuring demons. Period. Case closed. End of story.
That is why there's no Catholic Tradition of deliverance prayers for the laity along the lines of what Ripperger publishes in his books.
And, according to St. Alphonsus, deprecatory (deprecative) adjuration should not be used with regard to demons. "Please, Mr. Demon, in the name of God, leave." But then, commands, such as "I command you to leave ..." (which Ripperger has in his books), they should only be performed in the case of demons BY EXORCISTS (as they have authority over demons from the Church).
Now, Ripperger argues that you can do this if you have authority over those AFFLICTED by demons, i.e. if my wife or my children are afflicted by demons, I can command the demons. That is completely wrong. I can only issue imperative (command) adjurations to those over whom I have authority. I can imperatively adjure my wife and my children, but cannot imperatively adjure the demons who are afflicting them. I could, theoretically, adjure them in a deprecative manner (appealing to the authority), but St. Alphonsus states that deprecatory/deprecative adjuration should not be done vis-a-vis demons.
This is the source of Ripperger's blunder. He also blurs and blends in and confounds the solemn vs. private distinction, but that has nothing to do with this.
"Mr. Demon, I have authority over my children, so I command you to leave them alone." bzzzzt. We can appeal to God to enforce our authority, but as we have no authority over the DEMONS THEMSELVES, we cannot imperatively adjure them to leave them alone. God can enforce this authority. We cannot.
Nor can we issue deprecative adjurations, "Mr. Demon, pretty please, leave my kids alone."
Both of these have the potential for the Demons to retaliate against the issuer of these adjurations ... out of spite.
Now we move onto the second condition laid out by St. Alphonsus for adjuring demons, that these imperative adjurations be issued ONLY for the sake of removing the damage / harm and vexation of the oppressed and "not out of vanity or curiosity". So only those inquiries can be made of the demons which pertain specifically to extirpating the demon. Exorcists should not command the demon out of vanity, "I command you to jump up and down." (i.e. just to show off his authority) or out of curiosity, "So, I command you to tell me what your plans are for attacking the Church." And then St. Alphonsus states (as common teaching) that an exorcist who has "many useless conversations with the one obsessed by a demon cannot be excused of grave sin", i.e. conversations that do not pertain directly to the extirpation of the demon and freeing the obsessed.
St. Alphonsus then discusses some opinions (in contrast with having "many useless conversations") about whether it's a grave sin to ask even one or two questions out of curiosity. He cites one theologian who says that it is, and his reason is that in such a situation, the exorcist appears to be adjuring the demon in a deprecative manner (vs. imperatively). But St. Alphonsus disagrees, saying that it's more probably only a venial sin if it's clear that the exorcist is asking in an imperative manner.
BUT NOTE WELL: In both cases, he's saying that to adjure demons in a deprecative mode or manner would constitute mortal sin. So recall when I said that St. Alphonsus says demons can only be adjured in an imperative mode, he amplifies that here by asserting that to adjure demons in a deprecative/deprecatory manner would be a grave sin.
-
Good deal. Make sure to cite Ripperger promoting Solemn Exorcism by the Laity as well.
:popcorn:
Read my latest post. Your dishonestly manifests itself more with each post. No one ever claimed that Ripperger was advocating solemn exorcism. That's actually central to Ripperger's blunder, however, which you accept by way of begging the question.
This has nothing to do with the solemn vs. private distinction, and everything to do with imperative vs. deprecatory adjuration of demons.
St. Alphonsus clearly states that 1) it's grave sin to use a deprecatory adjuration with a demon (even for an exorcist) and that 2) only exorcists (by virtue of having authority over demons) can issue imperative adjurations (i.e. command adjurations) to demons.
Case closed. Ripperger blunders and misreads St. Alphonsus, and then uses that misreading to justify his novelty of publishing deliverance prayers for that laity that include imperative adjuration of demons. This is why there's no Tradition whatsoever of lay people engaging demons in this manner. Laity have no authority over demons to issue imperative adjurations, and it's grave sin to issue deprecatory adjurations to demons.
It's also grave sin for the Exorcist to interrogate the demons other than specifically about things which are necessary to know in order to extirpate the demon from the obsessed.
-
^ Down voted ? Lol
Hey, keeping it honest can't hurt can it ?
More dishonesty, implying that I downvoted you. I had not returned to this thread nor seen your posts until I had finished my research of St. Alphonsus and posted it.
-
You can go choke on your popcorn, as you have been promoting aberrant and sinful behavior by shilling for Ripperger.
-
Firstly, I find it very logical. It clearly shows the boundaries wherein the devil and his demons can act, and how the authority structure is important on how to fight the diabolic. It is good to have laid out the traditional structure of the family, to show a)the right order within the family unit and b) how that will further elucidate the daily means of spiritual combat.
As for Father Ripperger, there are indeed problem areas. One major one is his association with the Novus Ordo Mass. He could not criticize it while he was in the FSSP and that lack carries into his present ministry. The increased lack of efficacy of exorcisms has to be tied in with ongoing celebration of the Bogus NoNo by exorcists. Despite the solid philosophy and theology in the texts Dominion and the one on mental health, how one can logically remain in the conciliar church is a bit baffling. That the ecclesial structure of authority was destroyed in Vatican II would explain if nothing else how the demonic has been given the power over society and the structures of the conciliar church.
I take the good from Father R's texts, and through judicious discernment - as I have received formal philosophical and theological education - question the remainder to see if it be ill or no.:cowboy:
Bogus Nono- I love it
-
Good deal. Make sure to cite Ripperger promoting Solemn Exorcism by the Laity as well.
:popcorn:
We also are still waiting for anything close to that.
-
Has anyone noticed that downvotes for Lad lead to a blank page?
-
Has anyone noticed that downvotes for Lad lead to a blank page?
I don't know how to check that yet.
Fwiw, since I've accuмulated enough posts to have the privilege of using the vote feature, I've not downvoted any posts. ( Unless I did it unintentionally while scrolling on my phone... I don't think I have done that though) I've up voted a few.
I don't plan to down vote anyone. I'd rather just voice my disagreement.
Anyhow, I have a question for all. Is the short form St Michael prayer a deprecative prayer ?
-
Has anyone noticed that downvotes for Lad lead to a blank page?
Yeah, that's odd
-
We also are still waiting for anything close to that.
Cera, have you said this prayer?
Deliverance Prayers: For Use by the Laity
Page 25
Spirit of N., I bind you in the Name of Jesus, by the power of the most Precious Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ and by the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, St. Michael the Archangel, the blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul and all of the saints, and I command you to leave N. (Name of person or object) and go to the foot of the Holy Cross to receive your sentence, in the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
-
Has anyone noticed that downvotes for Lad lead to a blank page?
Yeah, that's odd
Ladislaus' downvote score hasn't changed from -5066 for at least 3 weeks.
-
Jesus I ask Thee, to bind the spirit of pride by the power of Thy most Precious Blood and by the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, St. Michael the Archangel, the blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul and all of the saints, and I ask Thee to command pride to leave me and go to the foot of the Thy Holy Cross to receive Your just sentence, in the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
That's how I would modify ...
Spirit of N., I bind you in the Name of Jesus, by the power of the most Precious Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ and by the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, St. Michael the Archangel, the blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul and all of the saints, and I command you to leave N. (Name of person or object) and go to the foot of the Holy Cross to receive your sentence, in the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
I know you didn't ask me but that's how I would do it if I were to pray it, per my understanding of the introduction in the book. (Using pride as an example)
-
Can we please keep the down vote discussion to other threads, and not divert this one?
-
Has anyone found a pre-V2 prayer book with binding prayers?
I haven't found one.
-
Can we please keep the down vote discussion to other threads, and not divert this one?
Perhaps best.
-
Has anyone found a pre-V2 prayer book with binding prayers?
I haven't found one.
Neither has anyone else.
-
I know you didn't ask me but that's how I would do it if I were to pray it, per my understanding of the introduction in the book. (Using pride as an example)
Maybe, except the prayers shouldn't be in there in their unmodified form at all, in the first place, period.
I just pray to Our Lady, my Guardian Angel, and St. Michael to war off any and all evil spirits.
Now, deprecatory adjuration of the Guardian Angels of those under our authority might in fact be a worthwhile endeavor, as, unlike the evil spirits, they are very much inclined to enforce the authority we have over our loved ones.
-
I know you didn't ask me but that's how I would do it if I were to pray it, per my understanding of the introduction in the book. (Using pride as an example)
Time stamp 1:43 to 2:12
He is certainly not changing the form to Jesus being the one doing the binding.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Emc-4hB-ec
-
Maybe, except the prayers shouldn't be in there in their unmodified form at all, in the first place, period.
I just pray to Our Lady, my Guardian Angel, and St. Michael to war off any and all evil spirits.
Now, deprecatory adjuration of the Guardian Angels of those under our authority might in fact be a worthwhile endeavor, as, unlike the evil spirits, they are very much inclined to enforce the authority we have over our loved ones.
Is the short form St Michael prayer a deprecative prayer iyo ?
-
Time stamp 1:43 to 2:12
He is certainly not changing the form to Jesus being the one doing the binding.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Emc-4hB-ec
I don't think he should be teaching his young children that prayer. Too much risk of them teaching it to their friends, without understanding what type of prayer it is and not understanding the authority aspect.
I'd say the St Michael prayer would be better for them.
-
Maybe, except the prayers shouldn't be in there in their unmodified form at all, in the first place, period.
I just pray to Our Lady, my Guardian Angel, and St. Michael to war off any and all evil spirits.
Now, deprecatory adjuration of the Guardian Angels of those under our authority might in fact be a worthwhile endeavor, as, unlike the evil spirits, they are very much inclined to enforce the authority we have over our loved ones.
Ok, noted,
Thanks
-
The Human Agents of Exorcism in the Early Christian Period : All Christians, Any Christians, or a Select Few Christians ?
Haven't read it yet but I just downloaded it.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.academia.edu/7797817/The_Human_Agents_of_Exorcism_in_the_Early_Christian_Period_All_Christians_Any_Christians_or_a_Select_Few_Christians&ved=2ahUKEwiUrcm988L6AhXNATQIHcENBIYQFnoECCUQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0QcZ2DC2CdLyj156Q3pHRL
Some may find it of interest.
-
I'd be careful of potentially-"Antiquarianist" approaches to "Early Christianity". There are lots of things in the early Church that could be read the wrong way due to lack of full context, and such mis-readings have led, for instance, to the charismatic movement.
-
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01142c.htm
Aquinas is good enough for me.
-
I'd be careful of potentially-"Antiquarianist" approaches to "Early Christianity". There are lots of things in the early Church that could be read the wrong way due to lack of full context, and such mis-readings have led, for instance, to the charismatic movement.
True, I didn't post it as evidence of Ripperger's conclusion. Just thought it was interesting.
-
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01142c.htm
Aquinas is good enough for me.
This is, then, one pre-V2 source that claims laity can adjure demons. Nevertheless, it goes farther than Ripperger does, with the latter stating that it may only be done in situations where a layman has authority over the person being afflicted by the demon, and this article puts no such restriction on it.
But, no, it's not St. Thomas, but, rather, someone's interpretation of St. Thomas, that is "good enough for [you]", as there's no citation anywhere of what St. Thomas actually wrote. Maybe we should actually read what St. Thomas wrote, just as Ripperger needed to actually read what St. Alphonsus wrote. You can find pre-V2 sources that promote every error of Vatican II, and there is in fact some heresy in it. So, it would behoove you to go track down what St. Thomas wrote instead of taking a sources word for it (as you did with Ripperger, and you were misled).
This article, just like Ripperger did, makes only the distinction between private/solemn, and ignores most of what St. Alphonsus ACTUALLY wrote on the subject.
St. Alphonsus was clear. There are two distinctions at work:
1) solemn vs. private
2) imperative vs. deprecatory
These are not to be conflated. In fact, there's a lengthy discussion in St. Alphonsus about whether an Exorcist (while acting in a solemn capacity) would commit a mortal sin if engaging in superfluous interrogation of the demon(s). All agreed that it would be, if done regularly. Then the question turns to, would it be a mortal sin even to just ask one or two such superfluous questions? St. Alphonsus cites one authority who said it would be, asserting that it would be in the nature of a deprecatory adjuration (since the line of questioning would be nowhere in the Catholic Ritual, and therefore it would lack the necessary authority to render it imperative). St. Alphonsus does not dismiss the opinion but states that he considered it more probable that it would only be a venial sin in that the question could still be presented with an imperative intent, even if not specifically and explicitly sanctioned by the Church's authority in so many words, presumably because the minister had the authority generally, vs. specifically only to do what's prescribed in the Rite). In either case, it's considered sinful.
But here's the key point. Even in a solemn exorcism, the minister would commit mortal sin by engaging in deprecatory adjuration of the demon ... in other words, demonstrating once again that these are two separate distinctions.
St. Alphonsus, then, clearly lays out that that no one, whether a minister or not, whether during the performance of a solemn rite or not, is permitted to engage in deprecatory adjuration of demons.
Then, in describing "imperative" adjuration, he states that imperative adjuration ONLY (tantum) applies when 1) the adjurer has direct authority over a subordinate or 2) by an Exorcist over demons. Period. He makes no other allowances for imperative adjuration, such as Ripperger's invented "you can do it if the person afflicted is under your authority." In fact, the New Advent article cited above puts no such restriction on it, so by all means start up your own Lay Exorcist Deliverance Ministry.
So, you go right ahead, buddy, and start exorcising demons. That article cites the example of the Jєωs who tried to exorcize demons "in the name of Jesus" and were immediately turned on and possessed by the demons. So you go ahead and play with demons, as Ripperger suggests, rather than having confidence in Our Lady, and the Angels, who can infallibly expel them, rather than relying on your own powers (that you implicitly hold are superior to those of Our Lady). You call yourself "HolyAngels" here but then behave as if you have no confidence in said Angels, but instead adopt the attitude of "if you want it done right, you need to do it yourself." Even NewAdvent cautions that any vainglory or pride in attempting to exorcise demons can have disastrous consequences. So the minute you get up there and think you're a tough guy taking on demons and reveling even slightly in your "powers" and "authority," it takes but a momentary lapse along those lines before you're having to call an Exorcist to exorcise the demons from you. Those, however, acting with real authority, i.e. Exorcists, to not pretend as if they had some personal authority over the demons, but recognize that they are acting with the authority of the Church. That is very real and practical reason that the Church requires (and St. Alphonsus teaches) that one has to have explicit authority from the Church to engage the demons.
But, let's go ahead and find what St. Thomas actually wrote instead of this writer's interpretation of it; he's already conflating private/solemn with laity/ministers.
Alas, we'll have to dig it up because, despite the article claiming that St. Thomas wrote this, there's no actual citation to St. Thomas, just some manualists and St. Alphonsus ... and none of them is actually directly quoted. Nor are the references helpful, just say "Book I" or "Book V" of this or that theologian, and no specific passages.
-
https://archive.org/details/sthomaquinatissu03thom/page/448/mode/2up
As suspected, there's absolutely nothing along the lines of what is claimed, that Christ gave "all believing Christians warrant to adjure the spirit of evil." [What does "the spirit of evil" mean here? Is that the same thing as an evil spirit? This author uses language very loosely. St. Thomas speaks of "demons" and not some vague "spirit of evil" as described by NewAdvent].
St. Thomas is merely asking where it is permitted to adjure demons period (and also men and also irrational creatures).
He first asks whether it is permitted to adjure other men. Here he makes the familiar distinction, using a slightly different word, "deprecatory" vs. "compulsory" ("of compulsion"). He states that it is permitted a superior to do use the compulsory (called by St. Alphonsus "imperative"), but otherwise it can only be deprecatory. Adjuration is an interesting question, with St. Thomas likening it to imposing an oath on someone else. Normally, an inferior is required to submit to a superior anyway, so I imagine that using the name of God somehow makes it more solemn? Does it render the obligation a mortal sin when adding the name of God into it? Neither St. Thomas or St. Alphonsus really delve into the matter, and this is just an aside.
So, I'll come back to the second question, the one under consideration here, about whether it is permitted to adjure demons, but what's interesting is in the third question, whether it's permitted/possible to adjure irrational creatures, St. Alphonsus disagree with St. Thomas. St. Thomas says yes, while St. Alphonsus says no. But that's not important here.
With regard to whether it is permitted to adjure demons, he begins with some objections, as per his usual approach, and then addresses them. 1) Origen says no, since it's a Jєωιѕн custom but not a power granted by Our Lord. 2) If it's permitted for us to adjure demons, then it would be permitted also for necromancers to apply various incantations to do the same. 3) In adjuring, you're establishing some association with the adjured, and it is not permitted to associate with demons. These seem like pretty weak objections, softballs for St. Thomas to knock out of the park.
So in response, he cites the Gospel of St. Mark where Our Lord says that "they shall cast out demons in My Name." And St. Thomas says that casting demons out is a form of adjuration (this will come into play later).
He says that it's permitted to adjure them out of compulsion, but not formulated as a request, since making a request would in fact be a problem according to objection 3, where you're establishing a relationship or association with them. But he says that compulsory adjuration is permitted, since demons are enemies. He'll also later say that even with compulsory adjuration, it's permitted to thwart their attacks, but not to get them to do other things, and not to learn things from them.
So compulsory adjuration is permitted against demons and only to repel their attacks, and not to obtains various benefits or knowledge from them (except an occasional rare case of a saint who's inspired to do something for the glory of God).
So, responding to the objections --
1) Origen was speaking about getting the demons to provide benefits to them, and not about repelling them.
2) Same thing goes for the necromancers with their incantations; that's forbidden because it's intended to obtain benefits/favors from the demons.
3) Repelling demons is not the same thing as forming a bond or relationship with them somehow.
AT NO POINT does St. Thomas discuss who can adjure demons, with what authority, and nowhere does he discuss the difference between solemn adjurations (by ministers using approved rites) and private ones. He is simply dealing with the question of whether it's permitted IN PRINCIPLE to cast out demons (and how, i.e. compulsion to repel attacks but not requests for assistance). There's absolutely nothing there along the lines of what NewAdvent had claimed, that he says that Christ gave "all believing Christians warrant to adjure the spirit of evil".
Here's an English translation (in addition to the Latin above) --
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.SS_Q90_A2.html
He doesn't even explicitly state that someone must be a Christian to adjure demons in the name of God or of Christ, even though that should be obvious. He's simply talking about whether it's permitted in general or in principle.
What neither Doctor says is whether it is POSSIBLE to adjure demons to do something. They both agree that it's gravely illicit, but they don't discuss whether invoking the name of the Lord could compel them to do other things besides stop afflicting someone. They SEEM to imply that the power given to the Church was simply to get rid of them, but never explicitly say so. At one point, St. Thomas does say that the demons are subject to God's authority, and then implies that God communicated not all of His authority over demons, but just the ability to cast them out. That is also where the former dispute in St. Alphonsus comes into play, i.e. whether in asking the demons questions, etc., you're really acting within the confines of your actual authority or making more of a request (as the one author held who stated that it was a mortal sin to ask demons questions other than what's directly related to expelling them).
So it seems that the Church does not have authority over demons categorically but just vis-a-vis their expulsion.
AND, and this is crucial for us here, when you do NOT have authority to make a demand, the adjuration takes on the form of a request, which is grave sin and can be extremely dangerous. And that is why if there's any doubt whatsoever about whether we have the authority to adjure demons, it must be avoided, because it can backfire and result in retaliation.
-
We have to remember, conversely, that when Our Lord applied the fruits of his Redemption (redeeming us or ransoming us from the power of the devil), applying this Redemption to us by virtue of our Baptism, the devil / demons no longer have any authority over us. We are subject to Our Lord, and of course the devil/demons are also. As Catholic writers indicate, they have no power over us other than what we let them have, by our free will, and in terms of what God will or will not allow them to do, for our good.
So this notion implied by Ripperger that they somehow gain power over us is a bit problematic. They might get power over us or other Catholics only to the extent that we allow them to have it, to the extent that we invite them in. So let's say that I have authority over my wife and my children, but my wife or my children freely allow these demons to have some power or influence over them. Can I command these demons to relinquish that power by virtue of my authority over my wife and children? I can command those under my authority, but at the end of the day, I cannot really command their free will, nor do I have authority over the demons. Not even God commands people's free will. Is this why Exorcisms are not automatic? Otherwise, by all rights, one would think that they should be. But sometimes they drag out for a long time, and in some cases they are ultimately unsuccessful? Why is that? As far as I can gather, this can only be because the one under the control or influence of the devil does not ultimately wish to be liberated, and if the person invites them in, by virtue of their free will, if even God does not violate free will, how can the Church countermand this free will? So if even the power of the Church cannot expel demons in every case (due to the free will of the afflicted), how much less efficacious would be our own attempts to liberate these afflicted.
And, then, why is it that Our Lord said that certain types of demons can only be cast out by prayer and fasting, vs. the simple exertion of authority? Our Lord also said that lack of faith on the part of the one invoking the authority (the Exorcist) can also prevent the Exorcism from being efficacious. So there's a mysterious interplay between 1) the authority of the Exorcist, 2) the faith of the Exorcist, 3) the free will of the obsessed/possessed, and 4) prayer/fasting. Of course, Our Lord had total control and power, so that no demon could resist His commands, even if the possessed did not will to be liberated, but then I imagine in the normal economy, the Lord would simply WILL not to intervene if the obsessed/possessed did not will to be liberated. And there's that mysterious passage where the demons request to be sent over into a herd of pigs, and for some reason Our Lord complied with the request. I wonder why. Did He have some compassion for them, despite their evil? Or was it to show how many there were and how evil and destructive they were? To show that they were unclean by wanting to go into unclean animals? Why did the demons/devils want to go into the swine? Just so they could find something to kill or to destroy? Of course, after this incident, the people of the two wanted Our Lord never to come back. Were they terrified? Or were they just upset that their swine herd (a source of their ability to survive) was wiped out? Lots of mysteries here.
-
Well I had a long reply typed out and when I went to post it I went to a screen that said I do not have permission to post on this forum and I have to register an account.
So I logged out and logged back in and I don't know what happened.
Anyhow,
I don't know what to say. Everyone wants pre-vatican 2 sources. The photo I posted of the preface on the copy of the long form St Michael prayer stated that the laity could pray it in private. At the end of the prayer there's an imprimatur.
Both of Ripperger's books in question have an imprimatur. He says we can adjure demons in private.
The Catholic encyclopedia article has an Imprimatur. It states all laity may adjure privately.
Two of three bishops, pre VII. Three bishops and a priest that studied theology. All probably have degrees in theology.
Your conclusion doesn't have an Imprimatur. Neither does my opinion.
I dunno. My understanding is that an Imprimatur is a traditional means of implying a work is free of error.
Which way am I supposed to lean as a Catholic ?
-
I responded on the other thread.
-
Well I had a long reply typed out and when I went to post it I went to a screen that said I do not have permission to post on this forum and I have to register an account.
So I logged out and logged back in and I don't know what happened.
Holy Angels, we've all had that happen -- there is some kind of time limit.
Unless the reply is short, it's best to write it on Word or WP and then cut-and-paste it in the reply box.
-
I hope this isn’t considered rude to bump things like this on here but I just read something in one of my kiddo’s religion books that I wanted to share. This is from The Means of Grace by Rev. John Laux, M.A. Imprimatur Francis W. Howard Bishop of Covington, March 25, 1932: “Those who are tempted to conceal any sin through false shame, should remember that the confessor is bound by the seal of confession never to reveal the least thing heard in confession or to make any use whatever of such knowledge.” So just for the record, no use whatever of such knowledge.
-
I hope this isn’t considered rude to bump things like this on here but I just read something in one of my kiddo’s religion books that I wanted to share. This is from The Means of Grace by Rev. John Laux, M.A. Imprimatur Francis W. Howard Bishop of Covington, March 25, 1932: “Those who are tempted to conceal any sin through false shame, should remember that the confessor is bound by the seal of confession never to reveal the least thing heard in confession or to make any use whatever of such knowledge.” So just for the record, no use whatever of such knowledge.
Hi Melanie, was your post in reference to another post on the thread ?
No big deal, just curious.
-
I hope this isn’t considered rude to bump things like this on here but I just read something in one of my kiddo’s religion books that I wanted to share. This is from The Means of Grace by Rev. John Laux, M.A. Imprimatur Francis W. Howard Bishop of Covington, March 25, 1932: “Those who are tempted to conceal any sin through false shame, should remember that the confessor is bound by the seal of confession never to reveal the least thing heard in confession or to make any use whatever of such knowledge.” So just for the record, no use whatever of such knowledge.
So much so that if a penitent came and confessed that he was a serial killer who had murdered 100 people, and the confessor judged him likely to murder more, he could not report the man to the authorities.
I'm trying to jog my memory, but I recall recently seeing a story where some "confessor" ratted out a penitent and had him arrested for some crime.
-
So much so that if a penitent came and confessed that he was a serial killer who had murdered 100 people, and the confessor judged him likely to murder more, he could not report the man to the authorities.
I'm trying to jog my memory, but I recall recently seeing a story where some "confessor" ratted out a penitent and had him arrested for some crime.
If the confessor judged him likely to murder again, would that not make the confession null because the penitent lacks the firm purpose of sinning no more? Would the seal of confession still apply here?
Somewhat unrelated, but an interesting thing I read today that I hadn't thought of before:
"May a priest in a court of justice make known what he has learned in the confessional?
No; and if he is questioned, he ought to declare to the judge, with an oath if that be necessary, that he knows nothing of the subject in question. For what he learns through the confession of a penitent, he knows not as man, but as a representative of God, and in this quality he is not subject to the jurisdiction of the judge."
From the Exposition of Christian Doctrine Part III "Worship"
-
If the confessor judged him likely to murder again, would that not make the confession null because the penitent lacks the firm purpose of sinning no more? Would the seal of confession still apply here?
Somewhat unrelated, but an interesting thing I read today that I hadn't thought of before:
"May a priest in a court of justice make known what he has learned in the confessional?
No; and if he is questioned, he ought to declare to the judge, with an oath if that be necessary, that he knows nothing of the subject in question. For what he learns through the confession of a penitent, he knows not as man, but as a representative of God, and in this quality he is not subject to the jurisdiction of the judge."
From the Exposition of Christian Doctrine Part III "Worship"
No, even if the priest judges that the penitent has no purpose of amendment, he can't act on it. I suspect it's a different issue if someone went to a priest and clearly had no intention to confess, i.e. just went into a confessional to taunt the priest, but I'm not sure if even in that case the priest would be permitted to reveal it. Most of us are likely to sin again.
But the principle there is interesting, essentially saying that the priest can "lie" under oath. We have a big thread on lying here before, where I suggested that a complete mental reservation is permitted with the reserved, "as far as you're concered" ... if the person has no right to the information. That seems to be implied here with this advice.
-
If the confessor judged him likely to murder again, would that not make the confession null because the penitent lacks the firm purpose of sinning no more? Would the seal of confession still apply here?
Somewhat unrelated, but an interesting thing I read today that I hadn't thought of before:
"May a priest in a court of justice make known what he has learned in the confessional?
No; and if he is questioned, he ought to declare to the judge, with an oath if that be necessary, that he knows nothing of the subject in question. For what he learns through the confession of a penitent, he knows not as man, but as a representative of God, and in this quality he is not subject to the jurisdiction of the judge."
From the Exposition of Christian Doctrine Part III "Worship"
As long as we've gone a bit off topic anyway... :cowboy:
Hitchcock made a radio program and film based on the seal of the confessional:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdLVPhqfhYw
Film:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/eiYij61nqvWA/
-
NOW shared this article from an EO blog on Twitter. And it is excellent. It gets right to the heart of what some of us have been saying about the tactics applied by Fr. Ripperger and other "celebrity exorcists".
https://www.myrrhandmanna.com/post/the-narcissistic-novelty-and-danger-of-celebrity-exorcists
-
NOW shared this article from an EO blog on Twitter. And it is excellent. It gets right to the heart of what some of us have been saying about the tactics applied by Fr. Ripperger and other "celebrity exorcists".
https://www.myrrhandmanna.com/post/the-narcissistic-novelty-and-danger-of-celebrity-exorcists
Hi DL, I noticed your avatar and I remember watching an old black and white movie where people were wearing those cone-shaped hats. It's been like 40 years ago and if I recall correctly the movie was staged in medieval Europe. Seems they were in a courtyard of a castle.
Was it some kind of religious order ?
-
Hi DL, I noticed your avatar and I remember watching an old black and white movie where people were wearing those cone-shaped hats. It's been like 40 years ago and if I recall correctly the movie was staged in medieval Europe. Seems they were in a courtyard of a castle.
Was it some kind of religious order ?
Ok, I found them; they are capirotes.
-
Ok, I found them; they are capirotes.
Yep, a Spanish penitential garb
-
So much so that if a penitent came and confessed that he was a serial killer who had murdered 100 people, and the confessor judged him likely to murder more, he could not report the man to the authorities.
I'm trying to jog my memory, but I recall recently seeing a story where some "confessor" ratted out a penitent and had him arrested for some crime.
In the 1953 Alfred Hitchcock movie I Confess, Montgomery Clift plays a priest who refuses to break the secrecy of the confessional, at great personal cost to himself.