I think I'll just stick to the St Michael prayer, thank you.  I say it sometimes several times a day.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.