.
This very long article didn't really explain what the errors are that these people promote.
Can anyone explain what Morello and these other people say that is objectionable, and preferably do so using only commonly-understood English words (there seems to be a serious jargon problem in the way these people talk, mostly borrowing from Greek and using words like "theurgy" or "egregore". I need someone to explain this to me like I'm five.)
Sorry everyone if I'm bumping this thread too much I'm passionate about the topic :P
I started writing a point by point response but realized the article is very long. In short I think the objections are very weak. They boil down to
1. Misunderstanding terminology and the worldview of these people. It's Christian Neo-Platonism. They use words in analogous and broad senses. Liturgy is like magic because it actually does what it says, it's not a theater play it's a true re-presentation. It is
analogous to the spells we see in movies where a guy says "Glasses be repaired" and the glasses are repaired.
He mentions this a bunch, the Coloumbe FAQ is actually a great simple explanation for what these people are talking about https://www.tumblarhouse.com/blogs/news/ultra-realism-faq
2. Having a problem with these authors quoting or printing esoteric non-Catholic authors: he ridicules the idea but doesn't really explain why exactly this is different from Christians quoting the pagans for millenia and Bp. Williamson doing a talk on the Unabomber manifesto. "All truth is God's truth" after all.
There are some valid criticisms: Coloumbe's divination if real is obviously horrible, they should put up more disclaimers that this is only for well-formed Catholics, etc. but I don't think it's some occult infiltration, it's a Christian Neo-Platonic infiltration, which is what St. Augustine and St. Bonaventure were.