Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: What did Fr. Ripperger actually say?  (Read 4809 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline 2Vermont

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11423
  • Reputation: +6384/-1119
  • Gender: Female
Re: What did Fr. Ripperger actually say?
« Reply #15 on: March 02, 2023, 07:07:34 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • What cut it for me was his booklet The Merit of the Mass in the beginning pages he says:

    "In discussing the value of the Mass, one must make a distinction between intrinsic and the extrinsic value. The intrinsic value of any valid Mass is infinite since It is Christ, Who is infinite, Who is offered. Hence, in this respect every Mass has an infinite value. The new rite of Mass is just as efficacious as the old rite of Mass in this respect since they are both the same sacrifice of Christ..."

    Why is he a trad priest when the bolded is his fundamental presupposition for the article?
    Because he's not truly a "trad priest"?  

    Quite honestly, I see no benefit from looking to Novus Ordo "priests" for anything.  Steer clear.

    Offline DigitalLogos

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8304
    • Reputation: +4717/-754
    • Gender: Male
    • Slave to the Sacred Heart
      • Twitter
    Re: What did Fr. Ripperger actually say?
    « Reply #16 on: March 02, 2023, 07:12:52 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I think I'll just stick to the St Michael prayer, thank you.  I say it sometimes several times a day.
    Same here. I've found that and the Pater most efficacious against temptations, and worked tremendously against the two actual demonic attacks I've suffered.
    "Be not therefore solicitous for tomorrow; for the morrow will be solicitous for itself. Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof." [Matt. 6:34]

    "In all thy works remember thy last end, and thou shalt never sin." [Ecclus. 7:40]

    "A holy man continueth in wisdom as the sun: but a fool is changed as the moon." [Ecclus. 27:12]


    Offline rosarytrad

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 304
    • Reputation: +225/-25
    • Gender: Male
    Re: What did Fr. Ripperger actually say?
    « Reply #17 on: March 02, 2023, 07:24:59 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!3
  • Quite honestly, I see no benefit from looking to Novus Ordo "priests" for anything.  Steer clear.

    THIS. I will never understand why so many Traditional Catholics listen to Fr. Rip or any other NO priest. They are members of a FALSE RELIGION. Worse than protestants.
    The mercies of the Lord I will sing for ever. - Ps. 88:2a
    St. Anthony of Padua, pray for us.
    St. John of God, pray for us.
    Our Lady of Guadalupe, mystical rose, make intercession for Holy Church.

    Offline Ascetik

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 581
    • Reputation: +421/-68
    • Gender: Male
    Re: What did Fr. Ripperger actually say?
    « Reply #18 on: March 02, 2023, 07:43:47 AM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!1
  • What cut it for me was his booklet The Merit of the Mass in the beginning pages he says:

    "In discussing the value of the Mass, one must make a distinction between intrinsic and the extrinsic value. The intrinsic value of any valid Mass is infinite since It is Christ, Who is infinite, Who is offered. Hence, in this respect every Mass has an infinite value. The new rite of Mass is just as efficacious as the old rite of Mass in this respect since they are both the same sacrifice of Christ..."

    Why is he a trad priest when the bolded is his fundamental presupposition for the article?

    Did you even bother to read the article? He's talking about the ontological merit vs efficacious/subjective merit and comparing the two, that's the whole point of the article, and if you bothered to read it, you'd know exactly why he said that.

    If you believe the NO is invalid in each and every case then it I can understand why you would be concerned, but from a purely ontological metaphysical perspective, they are exactly the same, in terms of sacrifice, the TLM and the NO, in that respect and only in that respect, not in any other, which he goes on to explain.

    Again, if you had read the article, you wouldn't be so shocked.

    Offline Ascetik

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 581
    • Reputation: +421/-68
    • Gender: Male
    Re: What did Fr. Ripperger actually say?
    « Reply #19 on: March 02, 2023, 07:47:12 AM »
  • Thanks!5
  • No Thanks!1
  • THIS. I will never understand why so many Traditional Catholics listen to Fr. Rip or any other NO priest. They are members of a FALSE RELIGION. Worse than protestants.

    He's literally never even said the Novus Ordo once. He's more traditional than a lot of priests I've met. This kind of talking doesn't do anyone any favors and only harbors malice towards a good priest. Calling him worse than a Protestant is basically calumny.


    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14719
    • Reputation: +6061/-905
    • Gender: Male
    Re: What did Fr. Ripperger actually say?
    « Reply #20 on: March 02, 2023, 08:00:30 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Did you even bother to read the article? He's talking about the ontological merit vs efficacious/subjective merit and comparing the two, that's the whole point of the article, and if you bothered to read it, you'd know exactly why he said that.

    If you believe the NO is invalid in each and every case then it I can understand why you would be concerned, but from a purely ontological metaphysical perspective, they are exactly the same, in terms of sacrifice, the TLM and the NO, in that respect and only in that respect, not in any other, which he goes on to explain.

    Again, if you had read the article, you wouldn't be so shocked.
    No, I stopped at that point because I've seen the same error often enough to know the rest of the article was not for me.

    Also, when he says: "The intrinsic value of any valid Mass is..."  when what he means is "The intrinsic value of any valid consecration" only serves to confuse the issue and imo, does only harm.
     
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 11423
    • Reputation: +6384/-1119
    • Gender: Female
    Re: What did Fr. Ripperger actually say?
    « Reply #21 on: March 02, 2023, 08:09:05 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Did you even bother to read the article? He's talking about the ontological merit vs efficacious/subjective merit and comparing the two, that's the whole point of the article, and if you bothered to read it, you'd know exactly why he said that.

    If you believe the NO is invalid in each and every case then it I can understand why you would be concerned, but from a purely ontological metaphysical perspective, they are exactly the same, in terms of sacrifice, the TLM and the NO, in that respect and only in that respect, not in any other, which he goes on to explain.

    Again, if you had read the article, you wouldn't be so shocked.
    So he "prefers" the Latin Mass. 

    If they were exactly the same, they would both be Catholic.  If they are both Catholic, then they would have exactly the same merit ontological and otherwise... and there would be no reason to not go to the new rite. 

    Offline rosarytrad

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 304
    • Reputation: +225/-25
    • Gender: Male
    Re: What did Fr. Ripperger actually say?
    « Reply #22 on: March 02, 2023, 08:42:00 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!2
  • So he "prefers" the Latin Mass. 

    If they were exactly the same, they would both be Catholic.  If they are both Catholic, then they would have exactly the same merit ontological and otherwise... and there would be no reason to not go to the new rite.
    Again... THIS. If NO priests are valid and the new rite is a Catholic mass, and supposedly according to Jorge Bergoglio it is the unique expression of the Church, we should all be there attending the NO on Sundays.

    At least with protestants I know they aren't Catholic. NO priests and Indult priests are not Catholic priests and they do not practice the Catholic religion. I stand by my statements. They are deceivers and leading souls to hell. 
    The mercies of the Lord I will sing for ever. - Ps. 88:2a
    St. Anthony of Padua, pray for us.
    St. John of God, pray for us.
    Our Lady of Guadalupe, mystical rose, make intercession for Holy Church.


    Offline Ascetik

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 581
    • Reputation: +421/-68
    • Gender: Male
    Re: What did Fr. Ripperger actually say?
    « Reply #23 on: March 02, 2023, 09:26:28 AM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0
  • Sorry, but you guys clearly don't understand what ontology is in St. Thomas. I'm not going to continue discussing something you clearly are not educated on, while telling me I'm wrong. Being belligerent and incapable of making Thomistic metaphysical ontology distinctions in cases like this is one of the reasons for the crisis in the Church.

    You didn't read the article, He didn't say they were the same, they are vastly different by degree. A Satanic mass is still valid, that doesn't mean you should attend or go. Though ontologically speaking there is a valid sacrifice. That's the distinction he makes. If you fail to understand that according to Thomistic principles and metaphysics, that's your problem, not his.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46600
    • Reputation: +27440/-5070
    • Gender: Male
    Re: What did Fr. Ripperger actually say?
    « Reply #24 on: March 02, 2023, 09:34:56 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Sorry, but you guys clearly don't understand what ontology is in St. Thomas. I'm not going to continue discussing something you clearly are not educated on, while telling me I'm wrong. Being belligerent and incapable of making Thomistic metaphysical ontology distinctions in cases like this is one of the reasons for the crisis in the Church.

    You didn't read the article, He didn't say they were the same, they are vastly different by degree. A Satanic mass is still valid, that doesn't mean you should attend or go. Though ontologically speaking there is a valid sacrifice. That's the distinction he makes. If you fail to understand that according to Thomistic principles and metaphysics, that's your problem, not his.

    You throw nonsensical phrases out there like "Thomistic metaphysical ontology distinctions" that indicate you don't even know what these words mean.  You just string a bunch of them together because it somehow sounds good, and then claiming that you're "educated on" it while everyone else is not.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46600
    • Reputation: +27440/-5070
    • Gender: Male
    Re: What did Fr. Ripperger actually say?
    « Reply #25 on: March 02, 2023, 09:42:24 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I do not think Fr. Ripperger teaches that lay people may directly command demons.  I agree, that is thoroughly Protestant and specifically Pentecostal.

    Yes, Father does teach that.  So, his spin on it is the assertion (that cannot be demonstrated from Traditional Catholic theology ... and is based on a misreading of St. Alphonsus, as we dealt with on another thread) that lay people can command demons where it comes to people who are under their authority.  So, he'll say that a father can command demons to depart from his wife and children, since the wife and children are under his authority. 

    Father's error is that this does not, however, mean that the demons are under his authority.  He can command those under his authority, but cannot command the demons, who are not.  I own a car and see a thief trying to steal it.  I issue a command to the thief to stop, since I own the car.  Not only is he under no obligation to comply, but he could decide to take it out on me for trying to stop him.  There's absolutely no reason we can't ask Our Lady, the Terror of Demons, or St. Michael or our guardian angels to ward off the demons.  We can even ask the guardian angels of those under our authority to respect our authority.  They will do so because they respect God's authority, which is the same authority we exercise over our children, etc.  But demons will only comply if they're forced to by God or by those who have authority over them through the Church, i.e. exorcists.

    This notion of "Deliverance" is utterly Protestant and is based on the Protestant notion regarding a priesthood of all believers.  In fact, since there's no Tradition for Catholic "Deliverance", Father Ripperger had to take Prot deliverance prayers and modify them to make them more consistent with Catholic doctrine.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46600
    • Reputation: +27440/-5070
    • Gender: Male
    Re: What did Fr. Ripperger actually say?
    « Reply #26 on: March 02, 2023, 09:45:20 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The red flag for me are his statements about what the demons are revealing.  "The demons are telling us their time is almost up." 

    He is assuring everyone the demons know the "era of peace" is coming.

    Demons lie.

    Wouldn't demons love everyone to fall for the "era of peace" that appears to come with the arrival of the Antichrist?

    Absolutely demons lie.  That is the reason that St. Alphonsus and St. Thomas state that it's a grave sin for an exorcist to engage in such conversations with the demons ... except if they're moved by some very clear divine inspiration (such as a saint here or there may have been).  Yet Father Ripperger is constantly reporting on these various "conversations" with demons.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46600
    • Reputation: +27440/-5070
    • Gender: Male
    Re: What did Fr. Ripperger actually say?
    « Reply #27 on: March 02, 2023, 09:50:21 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • I had a roommate who went to a Pentecostal church and she died just before her 35th birthday because her “deliverance” group that included her fiancé had her believing that the “demon of diabetes” had been cast out.

    If you look at Father Ripperger's prayers, he has very similar lists of demons, the demon of this, the demon of that.  He gives the distinct impression that all evils and all hardships in life are caused by demons, leaving very little room for natural conditions.  So, for instance, he's attributed people who have financial hardships to demons attacking them.  Really?  Perhaps God is allowing these hardships.  In fact, even IF it's a demon doing it, it's only because God has allowed it, i.e. willed that the person experience these hardships, as St. Francis de Sales indicated.  He advised ignoring demons rather than attempting to confront them, having confidence that they can do no more than what God allows.  He likened a demon to a dog on a chain (a chain put there by God).  They're all bark and no bite ... except if you approach the dog.  So he advised ignoring them.  Father Ripperger advises confronting them, investigating and praying to find out their "names" etc.  It's incredibly dangerous and contrary to what the saints have Traditionally told us about such matters.

    While Father Ripperger is a decent Thomist, traditionally-minded in a lot of ways, it's obvious that he's made a name for himself through the demonology.  He's become a celebrity precisely because he deals with subjects that inflame the curiosity of people with itchy ears looking for interesting / novel things.  That's not a good sign.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46600
    • Reputation: +27440/-5070
    • Gender: Male
    Re: What did Fr. Ripperger actually say?
    « Reply #28 on: March 02, 2023, 09:52:07 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Though I haven't seen Fr. Ripperger's prayer book, his book Dominion has a whole chapter about authority. Basically, he says that among laity, authority is within the family: father over wife and minor children, and I think he explains a qualified authority of the wife toward the husband in the sacramental reciprocity of marriage (not to get too far into detail there). A mother's authority over her minor children in effect is delegated to her in a limited sense by her husband. Grandparents have no authority over grandchildren unless delegated by their father, and adult children have no authority over their own parents. The 1962 Missal also includes several deliverance prayers for private use by laity. It would seem that within the family is when these would be allowable, yes? 

    Beyond the above, Fr. Ripperger says that no layperson should ever attempt to engage with demons afflicting any other person. Yet it's essential that one have self-authority with regard to demons, otherwise an exorcist would be blocked by the affected person's non-cooperation.

    The group that calls itself "Catholic" but is dangerously Prot-friendly is Neil Lozano's "Unbound" or "Heart of the Father" -- definitely stay away from them. They don't even acknowledge Our Lady nor any of the Saints.

    No.  Having authority over one's family does not translate into having authority over the demons who might be afflicting them.  There are no "deliverance prayers" in any 1962 Missal.  There are imprecatory prayers to Our Lady and St. Michael, but there is zero precedent for prayers where the laity issue commands to demons.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46600
    • Reputation: +27440/-5070
    • Gender: Male
    Re: What did Fr. Ripperger actually say?
    « Reply #29 on: March 02, 2023, 09:54:11 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I think I'll just stick to the St Michael prayer, thank you.  I say it sometimes several times a day.

    THIS^^^.  And pray to Our Lady, the Terror of Demons, whose mere presence causes them to flee in terror.  Pray the Rosary.  Use the Sacramentals of the Church, which are very powerful to drive them away.  And if we have authority over our children, we can pray to their guardian angels to ward off the demons since we have an authority over the children.

    Who's more powerful, Our Lady and the angels and the Sacramentals of the Church ... or some chump issuing commands from a deliverance book?