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?

Not only this, but he's given sermons where he's slandered Traditional Catholics, derided them as Pharisaical, judgmental, and at one point suggesting that they're more prone to impurity than Novus Ordites (completely false).  He claims to have gleaned the latter from hearing Confessions, but ignore the fact that Novus Ordites tend not to go to Confession at all.  Why is it that at parishes with thousands of families around me, the same 3-4 people show up every week at their 30-minute Confession time on Saturday afternoon?  I get it that judgmentalism is a temptation among Traditional Catholics, but he bases this on criticizing the hierarchy and denounces legitimate criticisms, such as about Communion in the Hand, Liturgical abuses, and the New Mass.  In other words, to denounce Communion in the Hand, which is legitimately evil, he categorizes as Pharisaical judgmentalism.

I enjoyed listening to one of Father Ripperger’s talks when he fondly mentions memories of his grandparents and how they lived a simple Catholic life. 

I believe the fundamental problem with Ripperger is that his intellect has been corrupted. He holds simultaneous contradictories in his mind. 

His own words - not his voluminous quotes - but his own ideas and assertions, reveal a mind that is habituated to violations of the first principles of reason. Such intellectual degradation is the necessary effect when one simultaneously plays tradman and works assiduously to prop up the novus ordo imposture. You cannot hold both that the Catholic Church is the Catholic Church and that the novus ordo is the Catholic Church without frying your rational circuitry.

Ripperger's mind might be likened to a duality (schizoid). One track runs along the truth, especially through the prism of St. Thomas. The other track runs along the novus ordo falsity. These tracks seem to run parallel to each other, so that his intellect is never alerted to the violation of the first principles. 

You ask yourself how he can be both so good and so bad at the same time. Maybe this explains it. 

I think where he is his very best, is in his book on mental health, which is almost entirely the epistemology of St. Thomas. I'm studying it right now and it is doing me a world of good. 

First of all, it is reintroducing into my own mind a large body of knowledge I first received by studying the Summa. Because I've already learned from St. Thomas, and because I recognize St. Thomas in Ripperger's work, I am able to benefit from what Ripperger does best -  collate, organize, and summarize principles. 

Secondly, this book satisfies a great societal need for a rational dismantling of fake jew pscholatry. One of the primary vectors by which neo-paganism entered into the culture is "modern psychology." This has mutilated and destroyed minds, bodies, and souls with pretty much the same efficiency as Vatican II. In fact, did not the VII apparatus destroy the vocations of countless religious by delivering them over to "psychoanalysts?"

In his book on true psychology, Ripperger presents to the world the literal antidote to this poison. Besides Christ and the Church, mankind needs this knowledge more than anything else. 

I don't take the approach of categorically refusing to peruse the works of certain novus ordo operatives, on the sole basis of their being novus ordo. Some of them provide "victuals" here and there that are edible and even nourishing, provided one makes certain not to swallow the bones. 

The vast majority of thinkers on this forum graze in the pastures of men like Ripperger; and that is a good thing. It's good to point out their errors, and it is good to point out the good they do. 

Every single comment about the demonology niche Ripperger has carved out for himself is accurate and well taken. In fact, how do we know that he wasn't dragged into this fake exorcism ministry precisely because he is Thomistic and this would be a great way to make inroads into his mind. Or perhaps it's a great way to ever more firmly attach him to the novus ordo. He is human, and so he is susceptible to all manner of temptations that come with fame and notoriety. His prior compromise with VII had already unmoored him. This deliverance ministry BS might take him down in the end. 

As I do consider him a benefactor of sorts, I pray for him. Wouldn't he be just grand if he finally unified and purified his intellect?

One of Father Ripperger’s talks he advises Catholics on how to prepare for Confession.  These talks about the Catholic Faith has helped us to grow in our faith.  

One of Father Ripperger’s talks he advises Catholics on how to prepare for Confession.

This is basic, high-school level stuff.  I'm sure he does a good job here.


Where Fr R is dangerous (because he "doesn't know what he doesn't know...and also because he's infected with V2 heresies) is on the more theological and doctrinal issues of the day.  He can't be trusted here at all.

I think a point that is overlooked is Fr. Ripperger's demographic is primarily conservative NewChurchers and people new to tradition.  Possibly some Protestants who are considering the Catholic Faith.  Those raised in Tradition from traditional families don't need conferences on masculine authority or the dangers of pop culture.  He preaches to feminists (male and female)....are they in his audience?  He must think so or he wouldn't address it.  Why does he have an apostolate dedicated to deliverance (outside of his exorcism ministry)?  Probably because he's speaking directly to worldlings who have spiritual problems due to demonic influence.  He's not talking to me or most of the people on this forum more than likely.  

I've met Fr. Ripperger and my sister and brother in law were very close friends with him when he lived in Idaho.  He's a PhD psychologist (that's the NewChurch version of a moral theologian).  He seems solid on the surface but it's undeniable that his thinking has to be a bit schizophrenic to justify his remaining in NewChurch.

I lump him into the same category as Sensus Fidelium, Ryan Grant, US Grace Force, Fr. Altman, Mother Miriam, etc.  Trust but verify...

Many of his conferences are very good however...

All the more reason to keep to the centuries-old tried and true basics, Lorenzo Scupoli's The Spiritual Combat, a book that St. Francis de Sales actually carried in his pocket while salvaging the souls of Geneva that had fallen into Calvinist heresy.

Scupoli doesn't tell tales of exorcisms, doesn't venture into Thomistic inventories, and all but ignores heterodoxy. Instead he admonishes us to pray, seek the Eucharist, and set ourselves straight in stark humility and complete trust in the Lord, without which demons will laugh at us. Scupoli hardly even mentions spiritual warfare until around midway through. So his book in effect discourages prurient curiosity about the dark side that unfortunately does attract some part of Fr. Ripperger's current audience.

That's an excellent book.  Time to re-read.

I'm very troubled by "Catholics" who are defending the "Asbury" incident.  BTW, Asbury is Kentucky Pentacostal territory.

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.

The Angelus Press Daily Missal on pages 1795-1796 contains two versions of the St. Michael Prayer that are significantly longer and more detailed than the recognizable daily version. The header on page 1796 is in boldface, all caps: "PRAYER AGAINST SATAN AND THE REBELLIOUS ANGELS." Also, pages 1796-1798 contain the text of an Exorcism (in English). At the top of page 1796, it states (emphasis added), 

The Holy Father exhorts priests to say this prayer as often as possible, as a simple exorcism to curb the power of the devil and prevent him from doing harm. The faithful may also say it in their own name, for the same purpose, as any approved prayer. Its use is recommended when action of the devil is suspected, causing malice in men, violent temptations, and even storms and various calamities. It could be used a solemn exorcism (an official and public ceremony, in Latin) to expel the devil. It would then be said by a priest, in the name of the Church, and only with the Bishop's permission.

Therefore, is it that the 1967 Imprimatur at the bottom of page 1798 is too recent to be trustworthy, or is it that the above quoted instruction is not explicit enough for the average untrained layperson to grasp what may or may not be said "in their own name, for the same purpose"? Is it a copyediting error of a missing section header, and/or "prayer" in the singular vs. "prayers" in the plural? This is a hand missal in wide distribution. It's not a contraband copy of the version of Dominion that Fr. Ripperger wrote for and sells to priests only.

Not to derail this thread into a discussion of what is or isn't a deliverance prayer. Yet it's one more example of the current times during which we're more or less fending for ourselves based on the context-less content of YouTube videos and the back pages of hand missals.