Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Ladislaus on July 30, 2022, 01:56:07 PM
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeNKk7PUOw4
I know that he gets a lot of hate because of his Opus Dei connections, but I get the impression he's sincere despite that. I've known some decent people that got tied up with Opus Dei.
"I cannot see how Francis Bergoglio can be the Vicar of Christ."
-
He has in the past mentioned that Wojtyla did the same kind of stuff. Will he go full SV or Bennyvacantist like most of them? Bennyvacantism seems to be a compromise position where they're too afraid of SVism, so they cling to that theory.
-
An Opus dei, jew-trad media pundit... outing a jew anti-pope. :laugh1:
-
He has in the past mentioned that Wojtyla did the same kind of stuff. Will he go full SV or Bennyvacantist like most of them? Bennyvacantism seems to be a compromise position where they're too afraid of SVism, so they cling to that theory.
He has made a few Bellarmine videos, I think he will take a non-dogmatic moderate SV stance.
-
The guy still gives me the creeps.
-
"I cannot see how Francis Bergoglio can be the Vicar of Christ."
So, Dr. Marshall, how about this guy?
(https://novusordowatch.org/wp-content/uploads/mark_of_shiva.jpg)
-
He has made a few Bellarmine videos, I think he will take a non-dogmatic moderate SV stance.
He actually quoted Guerard Des Lauriers and a quote from St. Antoninus mentioning the matter of the papacy.
-
Patrick Coffin couldn't take any more of Bergoglio either ... but he went Bennyvacantist.
-
Francis is from the Freemasonic Lodge in Argentina. Therefore, he is a leviathan idiot.
-
I'm pretty sure Louie Verrecchio went sede.
-
So, Dr. Marshall, how about this guy?
(https://novusordowatch.org/wp-content/uploads/mark_of_shiva.jpg)
And TM had the nerve to say "Never in the history of Catholicism have we seen this". Really? I guess he's never seen the JPII incident?
And how about this guy ? [I know it's not pagan, but it's not Catholic!]:
(https://i.imgur.com/6dsc3RN.png)
-
He has made a few Bellarmine videos, I think he will take a non-dogmatic moderate SV stance.
I saw one by Father Jenkins, on Francis analyzed under St. Robert Bellarmine's precepts.
It was done by Taylor Marshall and Ryan Grant (both admit to being Jєωιѕн).
Now the funny thing was, Father thought their study was thorough and meritorious, but the two Jєωs concluded we were stuck with Francis.
Wouldn't that be the predictable conclusion from marrano Catholics? :laugh1:
Since Benedict XVI still claims some papal authority, so Anti-Pope Anacletus II fits the "Francis" mold.
He was a Jєω who, in 1130, bribed 17 Cardinals for the Seat. In 1138, he was ousted by a Catholic army, accompanied by Pope Innocent II and St. Bernard Clairvaux. This army was formed to overthrow the Anacletus II schism.
So, for their practical convenience, Marshall and Grant didn't do a full & complete analysis of the Francis papacy.
-
An Opus dei, Jєω-trad media pundit... outing a Jєω anti-pope. :laugh1:
Perfect!
I saw one by Father Jenkins, on Francis analyzed under St. Robert Bellarmine's precepts.
It was done by Taylor Marshall and Ryan Grant (both admit to being Jєωιѕн).
Now the funny thing was, Father thought their study was thorough and meritorious, but the two Jєωs concluded we were stuck with Francis.
Wouldn't that be the predictable conclusion from marrano Catholics? :laugh1:
Since Benedict XVI still claims some papal authority, so Anti-Pope Anacletus II fits the "Francis" mold.
He was a Jєω who, in 1130, bribed 17 Cardinals for the Seat. In 1138, he was ousted by a Catholic army, accompanied by Pope Innocent II and St. Bernard Clairvaux. This army was formed to overthrow the Anacletus II schism.
So, for their practical convenience, Marshall and Grant didn't do a full & complete analysis of the Francis papacy.
Even more perfect!
-
Another step in the right direction, at least.
-
I saw one by Father Jenkins, on Francis analyzed under St. Robert Bellarmine's precepts.
It was done by Taylor Marshall and Ryan Grant (both admit to being Jєωιѕн).
Now the funny thing was, Father thought their study was thorough and meritorious, but the two Jєωs concluded we were stuck with Francis.
Wouldn't that be the predictable conclusion from marrano Catholics? :laugh1:
Since Benedict XVI still claims some papal authority, so Anti-Pope Anacletus II fits the "Francis" mold.
He was a Jєω who, in 1130, bribed 17 Cardinals for the Seat. In 1138, he was ousted by a Catholic army, accompanied by Pope Innocent II and St. Bernard Clairvaux. This army was formed to overthrow the Anacletus II schism.
So, for their practical convenience, Marshall and Grant didn't do a full & complete analysis of the Francis papacy.
Incredulous, do you have the reference for Taylor Marshall and Ryan Grant admitting to be Jews?
-
Who cares about Taylor Marshall.
-
Rorate Caeli doubles down on R & R. Simply put; they worship Bergolio.
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2022/07/christ-and-christ-alone-is-savior-of.html
-
Crickets from the SSPX.
-
I thought Taylor Marshall went sede quite some ago, several months or longer. How is this news? What part of this am I missing?
-
Incredulous, do you have the reference for Taylor Marshall and Ryan Grant admitting to be Jєωs?
It was stated by them in their own separate broadcasts.
Marshall said he had a little Jєωιѕн blood in him. But then, he looks very Jєωιѕн.
Ryan Grant admitted it on "The Rundown". He looks Jєωιѕн too and a number of The Rundown fans know it and jokingly chide him for it.
Sorry, I can't give you the show date when they made the comments, but I heard both of them say it.
If you contact them by email, I doubt they would deny it.
-
Who cares about Taylor Marshall.
Understand the sentiment,
but consider that there's a great effort made by our enemies to place Marranos in the traditional Catholic media to influence and mislead us.
We are completely isolated and surrounded , yet they still want to infiltrate, confuse and mislead us from the truth.
It is our duty to always be on the watch for traitorous Marranos.
-
If he converted it would get a lot of people thinking.
I doubt he will though, he actually seems to me like a guy who would invent his own theory.
-
I thought Taylor Marshall went sede quite some ago, several months or longer. How is this news? What part of this am I missing?
Perhaps confusing him with Patrick Coffin?
-
I thought Taylor Marshall went sede quite some ago, several months or longer. How is this news? What part of this am I missing?
From Feb. of this year:
Dr. Taylor Marshall Says Francis IS A HERETIC Does Not Refer To Him As Pope? Part 2: From Trent, Catechisms, Popes
dxv515 (https://www.blogger.com/profile/02017422879391788605)February 16, 2022 (https://www.popefrancisthedestroyer.com/2022/02/dr-taylor-marshall-says-francis-is.html)
https://www.popefrancisthedestroyer.com/2022/02/dr-taylor-marshall-says-francis-is.html
-
I can confirm Incredulous statement about Ryan Grant being a Jew. There's at least 2 (maybe 3) episodes of "The Rundown" in the last year or so where he says it. Not sure about Marshall but I know member Mark79 has a slew of evidence against him being a (likely) Infiltrator.
I also called Ryan Grant out for refusing to debate Dimonds and running away from them in a comment section of one of "The Rundown" episodes before I was shadowbanned and he said they ran from him because they didn't want to do an E-mail debate where all the positions could be aired out in detail so I challenged him to an E-mail debate on Sedevacantism instead and he said he would and I sent him an E-mail and he confirmed it was his E-mail and said he would reply soon with a response....and of course he never replied lol.
-
Who cares about Taylor Marshall.
You cared enough to read the thread and leave a comment ... as his name is right there in the thread title, so you needn't have clicked on it.
-
You cared enough to read the thread and leave a comment ... as his name is right there in the thread title, so you needn't have clicked on it.
I think Taylor Marshall is genuine. Not the most intelligent theologian in the world but genuine nonetheless in my opinion.
-
I listen to Taylor Marshall semi regularly and he defiantly said on an episode I watched a few weeks ago that he is at least open to the possibility of BVism and full blown SVism.
-
I think Taylor Marshall is genuine. Not the most intelligent theologian in the world but genuine nonetheless in my opinion.
When he apologizes to the King family regarding Fisher-Moore College, then I would might consider him sincere. He needs to connect the fundamental issues with Jorge to all the NO popes to come to the correct conclusion. Same path Louie Verrechio took.
-
When he apologizes to the King family regarding Fisher-Moore College, then I would might consider him sincere. He needs to connect the fundamental issues with Jorge to all the NO popes to come to the correct conclusion. Same path Louie Verrechio took.
Most forum members here are probably not familiar with, or have forgotten about the Fisher-Moore College issue, in which Marshall did something completely underhanded.
That being said, if sedes think that Marshall will be an asset as a potential sede, then they are not seeing reality. But that's not unusual for sedes.
-
That being said, if sedes think that Marshall will be an asset as a potential sede, then they are not seeing reality. But that's not unusual for sedes.
Speak for yourself.
Dr. Marshall wouldn't necessarily be an asset in himself, as others have noted, he's not the brightest theologian out there and has very questionable connections. But as it stands, he's sitting at almost 400k subscribers on YT alone; that is quite an outreach if he did turn to the true position on the matter of these "Popes". Although, undoubtedly, be would be poised to lose a significant portion of them if he did; Louie Verecchio is an example of this.
But hey, Christ did say we would have to prepare to lose everything for the truth.
-
It was stated by them in their own separate broadcasts.
Marshall said he had a little Jєωιѕн blood in him. But then, he looks very Jєωιѕн.
Ryan Grant admitted it on "The Rundown". He looks Jєωιѕн too and a number of The Rundown fans know it and jokingly chide him for it.
Sorry, I can't give you the show date when they made the comments, but I heard both of them say it.
If you contact them by email, I doubt they would deny it.
Thanks for the information, it certainly does make a person think of the implications.
-
Speak for yourself.
Dr. Marshall wouldn't necessarily be an asset in himself, as others have noted, he's not the brightest theologian out there and has very questionable connections. But as it stands, he's sitting at almost 400k subscribers on YT alone; that is quite an outreach if he did turn to the true position on the matter of these "Popes". Although, undoubtedly, be would be poised to lose a significant portion of them if he did; Louie Verecchio is an example of this.
But hey, Christ did say we would have to prepare to lose everything for the truth.
So it's numbers that really matter? Quantity, not quality? How does that square with being prepared to lose everything?
I think that Marshall is just playing with sedes. Judging by his actions having to do with Fisher-Moore, the only thing that Marshall really cares about is money. How much do you know about that situation at Fisher-Moore?
No way is Marshall going to switch to a position that will lose him money. Absolutely not. And he no doubt uses the excuse that he has a lot of mouths to feed at home, in order to justify whatever he does in the name of mammon.
-
No way is Marshall going to switch to a position that will lose him money. Absolutely not. And he no doubt uses the excuse that he has a lot of mouths to feed at home, in order to justify whatever he does in the name of mammon.
At the end of the day, this is where it comes down to. He will drum up whatever controversy necessary to keep that money flowing.
-
"I cannot see how Francis Bergoglio can be the Vicar of Christ."
Obviously, from a simple grammatical point of view, and the basic meaning of such simple words, Marshall is doing exactly what you say he is doing, i.e. questioning the legitimacy of Bergoglio's papacy, but I have heard similar statements from numerous R&R proponents over the years, and I have never seen any of them deny that Bergoglio is the pope.
That raises a great question -- if they don't actually mean that they question Bergoglio's papacy by saying that, then what do they mean? The answer is I have no idea, and in most cases it seems clear that they themselves don't know what they mean by that statement. I think it is at bottom simply an emotional reaction that isn't really a rational thought in their mind.
In other words, Marshall is just pounding the table, he's not expressing a theological opinion.
Such is the Looking-Glass Land of R&R theology.
-
I can confirm Incredulous statement about Ryan Grant being a Jєω. There's at least 2 (maybe 3) episodes of "The Rundown" in the last year or so where he says it. Not sure about Marshall but I know member Mark79 has a slew of evidence against him being a (likely) Infiltrator.
I also called Ryan Grant out for refusing to debate Dimonds and running away from them in a comment section of one of "The Rundown" episodes before I was shadowbanned and he said they ran from him because they didn't want to do an E-mail debate where all the positions could be aired out in detail so I challenged him to an E-mail debate on Sedevacantism instead and he said he would and I sent him an E-mail and he confirmed it was his E-mail and said he would reply soon with a response....and of course he never replied lol.
Oh, that's interesting!
It's as if he is "signaling" us on his Jєωιѕнness.... to see who will challenge it?
Recall, "The Rundown" did an internal vote on "Who believe in the Moon Landing?"
Only Grant refused to deny it.
That tied in with his NASA, Star Trek fan club affection, which he was put on notice by viewers, for being Hollywood crypto-zionist propaganda.
-
I think Taylor Marshall is genuine. Not the most intelligent theologian in the world but genuine nonetheless in my opinion.
He is quite intelligent with some media charisma, but he's Opus Dei.
On his former website, he endorsed the Opus Dei and praised the "theological" writings of Jose Escriva.
So, his "pilgrimage of grace" has been: Protestant seminarian --> Protestant Minister --> Opus Dei catholic ---> Trad Catholic ---> trad expert.
What trads do you know who are Opus Dei?
Note: A similar path has been traveled by the Marranos, Gerry Matatics (Dark sede) and Scott Hahn (evangelical catholic).
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeNKk7PUOw4
I know that he gets a lot of hate because of his Opus Dei connections, but I get the impression he's sincere despite that. I've known some decent people that got tied up with Opus Dei.
"I cannot see how Francis Bergoglio can be the Vicar of Christ."
Any chance there's a bit of payback/hissy-fit going on, i.e., that he's really peeved about what Bergoglio just did as seen in the following article?
https://www.breitbart.com/faith/2022/07/23/pope-francis-demotes-status-of-conservative-opus-dei-group/ (https://www.breitbart.com/faith/2022/07/23/pope-francis-demotes-status-of-conservative-opus-dei-group/)
Pope Francis Demotes Status of Conservative Opus Dei Group
8,617 (https://www.breitbart.com/faith/2022/07/23/pope-francis-demotes-status-of-conservative-opus-dei-group/#) (https://www.breitbart.com/faith/2022/07/23/pope-francis-demotes-status-of-conservative-opus-dei-group/#) (https://www.breitbart.com/faith/2022/07/23/pope-francis-demotes-status-of-conservative-opus-dei-group/#) (https://www.breitbart.com/faith/2022/07/23/pope-francis-demotes-status-of-conservative-opus-dei-group/#) (https://media.breitbart.com/media/2022/06/GettyImages-1241462097-640x480.png)
Thomas D. Williams, Ph.D. (https://www.breitbart.com/author/thomas-d-williams/)
23 Jul 20226,129
3:40
ROME — Pope Francis has demoted the leader of the conservative Opus Dei group from bishop to priest, revoking the structure ordained by Saint John Paul II.
In an apostolic letter (https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/it/motu_proprio/docuмents/20220714-motu-proprio-ad-charisma-tuendum.html) ironically titled “Ad Charisma Tuendum” (In defense of the charism), Pope Francis reversed measures enacted by Saint John Paul II in 1982 that ensured that the Opus Dei personal prelature would always be governed by a bishop, thus guaranteeing a certain degree of independence and flexibility.
Francis has transferred the oversight of Opus Dei from the Congregation of Bishops to the Dicastery for the Clergy in a move widely interpreted as a backhanded slap to the group, which has traditionally focused on the sanctification and salvation of souls rather than contemporary concerns close to Francis’s heart such as climate change, immigration, anti-free market capitalism, and multilateralism.
In explaining why in the future the head of Opus Dei will no longer be a bishop, Francis states that for the good of the group’s “particular gift of the Spirit,” what is needed is “a form of government based more on charism than on hierarchical authority.”
In 1982, Saint John Paul II established Opus Dei as the Catholic Church’s first personal prelature under the leadership of its own bishop with his apostolic constitution (https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/la/apost_constitutions/docuмents/hf_jp-ii_apc_19821128_ut-sit.html) Ut Sit, giving it a juridical configuration “suited to its specific characteristics.” John Paul wrote in that text:
The Ordinary of the Prelature Opus Dei is its Prelate, whose election, which has to be carried out as established in general and particular law, has to be confirmed by the Roman Pontiff. The Prelature is under the Sacred Congregation for Bishops, and will also deal directly with the other Congregations or Departments of the Roman Curia, according to the nature of the matter involved.
Later, in 2001, John Paul reiterated the appropriateness of having Opus Dei governed by its own bishop.
Pope John Paul said in March of that year:
You are here representing the components by which the Prelature is organically structured, that is, priests and lay faithful, men and women, headed by their own Prelate. This hierarchical nature of Opus Dei, established in the Apostolic Constitution by which I erected the Prelature, offers a starting point for pastoral considerations full of practical applications.
I wish to emphasize, John Paul continued:
…that the membership of the lay faithful in their own particular Churches and in the Prelature, into which they are incorporated, enables the special mission of the Prelature to converge with the evangelizing efforts of each particular Church, as envisaged by the Second Vatican Council in desiring the figure of personal prelatures.
In an attempt to explain why Pope Francis felt compelled to demote Opus Dei’s leadership, some have had cited (https://urgente24.com/analisis/la-compania-jesus-ajusta-cuentas-el-opus-dei-n541018) the decades-old public hostility with which the pope’s Jesuit order has regarded Opus Dei.
Other have underscored (https://www.amazon.com/Pope-Francis-Struggle-Soul-Catholicism/dp/1632861151/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=) Francis’s personal animosity toward Opus Dei and his aggravation years ago that his own brother was close to the organization.
Whatever the pope’s personal reasons for humiliating Opus Dei, the measure will not do much to dissuade those who see Francis as vindictive toward those he views as unaligned with his priorities and merciful only toward those who share his progressive leanings.
While the pope has consistently marginalized groups that do not share his pastoral slant, he has simultaneously elevated (https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2021/05/18/pope-francis-appoints-fellow-jesuit-as-new-bishop-of-hong-kong/) members of his own Jesuit order in a manner unprecedented since the notoriously nepotistic era of the Renaissance.
Follow @tdwilliamsrome (https://twitter.com/tdwilliamsrome?ref_src=twsrc^tfw)
-
His output is far from perfect, but I think him sincere.
-
The one example of Marshall's Marrano agenda (to me) was his show commentary on the overturn of Roe vs Wade (June 22nd).
Considering this legal decision represented a 50 year, blood & guts Catholic battle against the demonic forces of ʝʊdɛօ-masonry, Marshall takes the opportunity to praise the crypto-jew Donald Trump?
Pro-Zionist Israel, Pro-Vaccine, Red Flag law... Donald Trump :facepalm:
-
Interestingly I recently purchased the Ryan Grant translation of St. Alphonsus' Moral Theology. I'm in the first section which is on conscience, and I found the translation awkward, so that I could not comprehend the definition given for vincible ignorance; and there were other sentences hard to wrest.
Now I'm no stranger to St. Thomas and to St. Alphonsus, both of whom I find eminently intelligible.
This strange wordstringing has given me pause. Now I think I might know the problem. I did not before know Grant's background.
I'm certainly ticked that I wasted my money on something I now cannot trust. Happily it was the kindle edition, so I'm only out a ten spot.
Grant certainly does have a face. Thanks, Incred, for alerting us to the facts of lineage regarding these media cucks.
-
Interestingly I recently purchased the Ryan Grant translation of St. Alphonsus' Moral Theology. I'm in the first section which is on conscience, and I found the translation awkward, so that I could not comprehend the definition given for vincible ignorance; and there were other sentences hard to wrest.
Now I'm no stranger to St. Thomas and to St. Alphonsus, both of whom I find eminently intelligible.
This strange wordstringing has given me pause. Now I think I might know the problem. I did not before know Grant's background.
I'm certainly ticked that I wasted my money on something I now cannot trust. Happily it was the kindle edition, so I'm only out a ten spot.
Grant certainly does have a face. Thanks, Incred, for alerting us to the facts of lineage regarding these media cucks.
This is so funny! :jester:
Thanks for bringing this up. I didn't want to mention it, but yes, Grant is a Jєωιѕн book peddler.
That a jew is doing translations on Catholic works is a bit concerning.
Recall a translation by jew for Penguin books on the antique book by Bernal Diaz's titled: "The Conquest of New Spain"
This is a fantastic diary story of Hernando Cortes' Montezuma campaign. Diaz was there.
Well in one small citation, the Franciscans on the campaign make note that the pagan idol statuary in all the Aztec temples appeared to look the same.
The Friars thought they were of judaic origin. This was a bombshell, implying that ritual human sacrifice was taught to the Aztecs by the jews, from the Diaspora.
I always wondered what the original text of Bernal Diaz's book contained about the jews and suspected that the tranlsator had conveniently deleted Diaz's more incriminating diary entrees?
-
Any chance there's a bit of payback/hissy-fit going on, i.e., that he's really peeved about what Bergoglio just did as seen in the following article?
https://www.breitbart.com/faith/2022/07/23/pope-francis-demotes-status-of-conservative-opus-dei-group/ (https://www.breitbart.com/faith/2022/07/23/pope-francis-demotes-status-of-conservative-opus-dei-group/)
Pope Francis Demotes Status of Conservative Opus Dei Group
8,617 (https://www.breitbart.com/faith/2022/07/23/pope-francis-demotes-status-of-conservative-opus-dei-group/#) (https://www.breitbart.com/faith/2022/07/23/pope-francis-demotes-status-of-conservative-opus-dei-group/#) (https://www.breitbart.com/faith/2022/07/23/pope-francis-demotes-status-of-conservative-opus-dei-group/#) (https://www.breitbart.com/faith/2022/07/23/pope-francis-demotes-status-of-conservative-opus-dei-group/#) (https://media.breitbart.com/media/2022/06/GettyImages-1241462097-640x480.png)
Thomas D. Williams, Ph.D. (https://www.breitbart.com/author/thomas-d-williams/)
23 Jul 20226,129
3:40
ROME — Pope Francis has demoted the leader of the conservative Opus Dei group from bishop to priest, revoking the structure ordained by Saint John Paul II.
In an apostolic letter (https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/it/motu_proprio/docuмents/20220714-motu-proprio-ad-charisma-tuendum.html) ironically titled “Ad Charisma Tuendum” (In defense of the charism), Pope Francis reversed measures enacted by Saint John Paul II in 1982 that ensured that the Opus Dei personal prelature would always be governed by a bishop, thus guaranteeing a certain degree of independence and flexibility.
Francis has transferred the oversight of Opus Dei from the Congregation of Bishops to the Dicastery for the Clergy in a move widely interpreted as a backhanded slap to the group, which has traditionally focused on the sanctification and salvation of souls rather than contemporary concerns close to Francis’s heart such as climate change, immigration, anti-free market capitalism, and multilateralism.
In explaining why in the future the head of Opus Dei will no longer be a bishop, Francis states that for the good of the group’s “particular gift of the Spirit,” what is needed is “a form of government based more on charism than on hierarchical authority.”
In 1982, Saint John Paul II established Opus Dei as the Catholic Church’s first personal prelature under the leadership of its own bishop with his apostolic constitution (https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/la/apost_constitutions/docuмents/hf_jp-ii_apc_19821128_ut-sit.html) Ut Sit, giving it a juridical configuration “suited to its specific characteristics.” John Paul wrote in that text:Later, in 2001, John Paul reiterated the appropriateness of having Opus Dei governed by its own bishop.
Pope John Paul said in March of that year:I wish to emphasize, John Paul continued:In an attempt to explain why Pope Francis felt compelled to demote Opus Dei’s leadership, some have had cited (https://urgente24.com/analisis/la-compania-jesus-ajusta-cuentas-el-opus-dei-n541018) the decades-old public hostility with which the pope’s Jesuit order has regarded Opus Dei.
Other have underscored (https://www.amazon.com/Pope-Francis-Struggle-Soul-Catholicism/dp/1632861151/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=) Francis’s personal animosity toward Opus Dei and his aggravation years ago that his own brother was close to the organization.
Whatever the pope’s personal reasons for humiliating Opus Dei, the measure will not do much to dissuade those who see Francis as vindictive toward those he views as unaligned with his priorities and merciful only toward those who share his progressive leanings.
While the pope has consistently marginalized groups that do not share his pastoral slant, he has simultaneously elevated (https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2021/05/18/pope-francis-appoints-fellow-jesuit-as-new-bishop-of-hong-kong/) members of his own Jesuit order in a manner unprecedented since the notoriously nepotistic era of the Renaissance.
Follow @tdwilliamsrome (https://twitter.com/tdwilliamsrome?ref_src=twsrc^tfw)
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS2n-OudKbKTfv03M2m38fstj37Mqboslapxg&usqp=CAU)
-
Interestingly I recently purchased the Ryan Grant translation of St. Alphonsus' Moral Theology. I'm in the first section which is on conscience, and I found the translation awkward, so that I could not comprehend the definition given for vincible ignorance; and there were other sentences hard to wrest.
Now I'm no stranger to St. Thomas and to St. Alphonsus, both of whom I find eminently intelligible.
This strange wordstringing has given me pause. Now I think I might know the problem. I did not before know Grant's background.
I'm certainly ticked that I wasted my money on something I now cannot trust. Happily it was the kindle edition, so I'm only out a ten spot.
Grant certainly does have a face. Thanks, Incred, for alerting us to the facts of lineage regarding these media cucks.
I bought it a while back on Kindle, and yes, it is definitely an awkward translation. I, too, found myself struggling with it because of the weird sentences and haven't really gone back to it since. Thank God I didn't put down $40-50 on a print copy. :facepalm:
I think Lad has commented before on how shoddy Grant's translations can be.
-
I bought it a while back on Kindle, and yes, it is definitely an awkward translation. I, too, found myself struggling with it because of the weird sentences and haven't really gone back to it since. Thank God I didn't put down $40-50 on a print copy. :facepalm:
I think Lad has commented before on how shoddy Grant's translations can be.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed this!
But Ryan Grant and Chad Ripperger are a regular pas de deux.
What does that say?
-
That being said, if sedes think that Marshall will be an asset as a potential sede, then they are not seeing reality. But that's not unusual for sedes.
You obsession with "sedes" has become some kind of mental disorder for you.
-
This is so funny! :jester:
Thanks for bringing this up. I didn't want to mention it, but yes, Grant is a Jєωιѕн book peddler.
That a Jєω is doing translations on Catholic works is a bit concerning.
Recall a translation by Jєω for Penguin books on the antique book by Bernal Diaz's titled: "The Conquest of New Spain"
This is a fantastic diary story of Hernando Cortes' Montezuma campaign. Diaz was there.
Well in one small citation, the Franciscans on the campaign make note that the pagan idol statuary in all the Aztec temples appeared to look the same.
The Friars thought they were of judaic origin. This was a bombshell, implying that ritual human sacrifice was taught to the Aztecs by the Jєωs, from the Diaspora.
I always wondered what the original text of Bernal Diaz's book contained about the Jєωs and suspected that the tranlsator had conveniently deleted Diaz's more incriminating diary entrees?
I'm really glad you mentioned it! You help me a lot. Back on a recent Vigano thread, you referred to him as an opus dei shill. Based on that, I did a google search and found a Randy Engel expose on Lifesite News and Vigano as opus dei assets. She's an expert on opus dei. Up to that point I was relying for discernment on my general knowledge and intuition. Now I see I was on the right track. I find that Randy Engle has an almost perfect sense of smell; and that her targets are consistently very deserving of her microscopic gaze.
-
…blah, blah, blah…sedes…blah, blah, blah…sedes…blah, blah, blah…sedes…blah, blah, blah…sedes…blah, blah, blah…sedes…blah, blah, blah…sedes…blah, blah, blah…sedes
-
Ryan Grant admitted it on "The Rundown". He looks Jєωιѕн too and a number of The Rundown fans know it and jokingly chide him for it.
Actually, Ryan Grant has admitted multiple times he is of Jєωιѕн descent. And so what? Ought we not judge people on the basis of their actions and statements? I feel that we should be charitable to those especially when they contribute to (traditional) Catholic culture in positive ways- like translating books (Belleramine, Alphonsus), otherwise unavailable to those of us who don't speak latin.
-
Actually, Ryan Grant has admitted multiple times he is of Jєωιѕн descent. And so what? Ought we not judge people on the basis of their actions and statements? I feel that we should be charitable to those especially when they contribute to (traditional) Catholic culture in positive ways- like translating books (Belleramine, Alphonsus), otherwise unavailable to those of us who don't speak latin.
I agree. We can't condemn people for simply have Jєωιѕн lineage. Sometimes it is possible to take the Jєωιѕн conspiracy thinking a bit too far. It is understandable, since Jєωs have a history of faking conversions ... but they're hardly persecuted these days for being Jєωs, so I think it's far less common. One exception would be to beware of Jews holding high positions in the Church ... since there's a suspicion of their being infiltrators, as that would in fact be one reason for faking a conversion, since without "converting" they wouldn't receive Holy Orders (although who knows anymore with Bergoglio).
-
Actually, Ryan Grant has admitted multiple times he is of Jєωιѕн descent. And so what? Ought we not judge people on the basis of their actions and statements? I feel that we should be charitable to those especially when they contribute to (traditional) Catholic culture in positive ways- like translating books (Belleramine, Alphonsus), otherwise unavailable to those of us who don't speak latin.
Agreed, my issue with Grant was limited to his translation work.
If we're going to sit here and question everyone's motives based solely on their background or lineage, then you might as well ignore everything I say because I was once a pagan and a militant atheist before that. Or 2V because she is of Jєωιѕн descent (iirc).
-
Agreed, my issue with Grant was limited to his translation work.
If we're going to sit here and question everyone's motives based solely on their background or lineage, then you might as well ignore everything I say because I was once a pagan and a militant atheist before that. Or 2V because she is of Jєωιѕн descent (iirc).
Granted, of course.
But there are facts to be considered.
A simple google search reveals that Grant is an editor at TAN books. We know the new TAN and the old TAN are not the same entity.
Grant is an author at OnePeter5, the very same entity that promotes Doc Kwack.
As I said above, he is a pas de deux with Chad Ripperger, and I think, translates many of the books peddled by Ripperger.
Now if you go over to a website called liberchristo, you will find that it trains novus ordo priests, deacons, and layfolk to be exorcists or exorcists' helpers. And that is not all you will find. Go to the section entitled Videos:
https://www.liberchristo.org/videos/
You will see some talks by Ripperger, but even more talks by one Kyle Clement, a layman. Listen to him, and it won't take you long to discern that he is a charismatic and inserts charismania into his trainings.
That is not just a run of the mill "NO beware" red flag. It is a smoking gun, as we know that charismania is identical to new age channeling. Charismania in an exorcism setting presents to my mind an extreme danger to the poor person already being manipulated and handled by exorcists without valid orders, and who come to them via deceit, i.e., through the vector of the illegitimate and satanic authority of a non-Catholic, infidel sect.
I've always found Ripperger to be a mixed bag, but I was frankly shocked to see that he actually associates himself with charismania in his "deliverance ministry." This caused me to decide to finally avoid him completely, after years of head scratching because of the strange things he often says.
None of these facts point to lineage as reasons for caution. They are concerning on their own merits. But when lineage is linked up with concerning behavior, that fact enhances rather than lessens concerns; because sad experience teaches us to be very leery of the "conversions" of these people.
Bottom line: Grant and all of his affiliates work for NovusOrdo Inc. They work to keep the the false hierarchy of the novus ordo in power, and to keep Catholics subjected to infidel overlords. You may rest assured that they also work behind the scenes to keep real Catholics out of the media and out of the publishing profession. It's the mafia, again and again.
These compromised "Catholics" dominate the airwaves and throw us dogs crumbs. They make sure the integral Faith has no wide audience. They do not defend the Faith. Rather they offer just enough truth to keep people from leaving the burning building. I would call them Halflings, but that would be an insult to Hobbits.
-
Granted, of course.
But there are facts to be considered.
A simple google search reveals that Grant is an editor at TAN books. We know the new TAN and the old TAN are not the same entity.
Grant is an author at OnePeter5, the very same entity that promotes Doc Kwack.
As I said above, he is a pas de deux with Chad Ripperger, and I think, translates many of the books peddled by Ripperger.
Now if you go over to a website called liberchristo, you will find that it trains novus ordo priests, deacons, and layfolk to be exorcists or exorcists' helpers. And that is not all you will find. Go to the section entitled Videos:
https://www.liberchristo.org/videos/
You will see some talks by Ripperger, but even more talks by one Kyle Clement, a layman. Listen to him, and it won't take you long to discern that he is a charismatic and inserts charismania into his trainings.
That is not just a run of the mill "NO beware" red flag. It is a smoking gun, as we know that charismania is identical to new age channeling. Charismania in an exorcism setting presents to my mind an extreme danger to the poor person already being manipulated and handled by exorcists without valid orders, and who come to them via deceit, i.e., through the vector of the illegitimate and satanic authority of a non-Catholic, infidel sect.
I've always found Ripperger to be a mixed bag, but I was frankly shocked to see that he actually associates himself with charismania in his "deliverance ministry." This caused me to decide to finally avoid him completely, after years of head scratching because of the strange things he often says.
None of these facts point to lineage as reasons for caution. They are concerning on their own merits. But when lineage is linked up with concerning behavior, that fact enhances rather than lessens concerns; because sad experience teaches us to be very leery of the "conversions" of these people.
Bottom line: Grant and all of his affiliates work for NovusOrdo Inc. They work to keep the the false hierarchy of the novus ordo in power, and to keep Catholics subjected to infidel overlords. You may rest assured that they also work behind the scenes to keep real Catholics out of the media and out of the publishing profession. It's the mafia, again and again.
These compromised "Catholics" dominate the airwaves and throw us dogs crumbs. They make sure the integral Faith has no wide audience. They do not defend the Faith. Rather they offer just enough truth to keep people from leaving the burning building. I would call them Halflings, but that would be an insult to Hobbits.
Excellent post, you have made very good points. I can't believe how so many Catholics still are so naive about these "converted" media jews.
-
You obsession with "sedes" has become some kind of mental disorder for you.
Well, at least you didn't call me a heretic and schismatic, as you often do with those who refuse to convert to sedevacantism.
-
Well, at least you didn't call me a heretic and schismatic, as you often do with those who refuse to convert to sedevacantism.
:facepalm: I've never said it was heresy not to be SV, but then nuances aren't your thing. I was denouncing various articulations of R&R made by some here on the board. Archbishop Lefebvre's position there was nothing wrong with, nor with that of the earlier SSPX, and Father Chazal's theology is rock solid. But then I can't expect you to understand the distinctions here. You just hear "sede" and have some Pavlovian reaction ... even though it's an absurd term, because everyone is a "sede", including the "sedeplenists".
Nor have I every commented on your position ... as I don't even know what it is. You just make this hit and run denunciatioins of "sedes" but have never actually presented anything of substance.
-
Granted, of course.
But there are facts to be considered.
A simple google search reveals that Grant is an editor at TAN books. We know the new TAN and the old TAN are not the same entity.
Grant is an author at OnePeter5, the very same entity that promotes Doc Kwack.
As I said above, he is a pas de deux with Chad Ripperger, and I think, translates many of the books peddled by Ripperger.
Now if you go over to a website called liberchristo, you will find that it trains novus ordo priests, deacons, and layfolk to be exorcists or exorcists' helpers. And that is not all you will find. Go to the section entitled Videos:
https://www.liberchristo.org/videos/
You will see some talks by Ripperger, but even more talks by one Kyle Clement, a layman. Listen to him, and it won't take you long to discern that he is a charismatic and inserts charismania into his trainings.
That is not just a run of the mill "NO beware" red flag. It is a smoking gun, as we know that charismania is identical to new age channeling. Charismania in an exorcism setting presents to my mind an extreme danger to the poor person already being manipulated and handled by exorcists without valid orders, and who come to them via deceit, i.e., through the vector of the illegitimate and satanic authority of a non-Catholic, infidel sect.
I've always found Ripperger to be a mixed bag, but I was frankly shocked to see that he actually associates himself with charismania in his "deliverance ministry." This caused me to decide to finally avoid him completely, after years of head scratching because of the strange things he often says.
None of these facts point to lineage as reasons for caution. They are concerning on their own merits. But when lineage is linked up with concerning behavior, that fact enhances rather than lessens concerns; because sad experience teaches us to be very leery of the "conversions" of these people.
Bottom line: Grant and all of his affiliates work for NovusOrdo Inc. They work to keep the the false hierarchy of the novus ordo in power, and to keep Catholics subjected to infidel overlords. You may rest assured that they also work behind the scenes to keep real Catholics out of the media and out of the publishing profession. It's the mafia, again and again.
These compromised "Catholics" dominate the airwaves and throw us dogs crumbs. They make sure the integral Faith has no wide audience. They do not defend the Faith. Rather they offer just enough truth to keep people from leaving the burning building. I would call them Halflings, but that would be an insult to Hobbits.
All great points, bravo.
The thing that got me away from Ripperger was his constant revealing of what information he received from demons during exorcisms and how he then turns around and applies it to current events. There was one such instance where he claimed that a demon said things were coming to a head soon (paraphrasing) and I had to ask "so we're using the Roman Ritual for divination now?"
On top of that, his complete blindness to the situation with Bergoglio and adherence to the NO conservative party line just made me swear off of him altogether.
-
:facepalm: I've never said it was heresy not to be SV, but then nuances aren't your thing. I was denouncing various articulations of R&R made by some here on the board. Archbishop Lefebvre's position there was nothing wrong with, nor with that of the earlier SSPX, and Father Chazal's theology is rock solid. But then I can't expect you to understand the distinctions here. You just hear "sede" and have some Pavlovian reaction ... even though it's an absurd term, because everyone is a "sede", including the "sedeplenists".
Nor have I every commented on your position ... as I don't even know what it is. You just make this hit and run denunciatioins of "sedes" but have never actually presented anything of substance.
Nuances can be very useful, except when dealing with those who hold that R&R is heretical and schismatic. Not much point in nuances. But you're right in the sense that you really only consider those who follow R&R to be heretical and schismatic. I follow R&R. You have, in years past called me a heretic and schismatic, but it's been awhile - 2 or 3 years at least. Maybe longer. My memory of you having referred to me as a heretic and schismatic is better than your memory of having called me that. I suppose it's difficult for you to keep track of all of those whom you have called a heretic and schismatic. Oh well.
And the Novus Ordo Catholics get a free pass, right? They are not heretics and/or schismatics, since they believe that Francis is the Pope, and they follow him. Such is the nuttiness of the sedevacanist view. Or at least your particular brand of sedevacanist view.
I have to assume that you also believe that Bp. Williamson, Bp. Zendejas, Bp. Faure, and Bp. Thomas Aquinas are also heretics and schismatics, correct? Since they believe that Francis is the Pope, yet they do not follow him. That includes the entire SAJM that you believe are heretical and schismatic. To Fr. Chazal you give a free pass, of course, since you believe that he holds to a type of sedeprivationist view.
-
"BREAKING" :facepalm: :laugh1: :laugh2:
-
And the Novus Ordo Catholics get a free pass, right? They are not heretics and/or schismatics, since they believe that Francis is the Pope, and they follow him. Such is the nuttiness of the sedevacanist view. Or at least your particular brand of sedevacanist view.
Cattiness towards obedience can be downstream of a dangerous RnR articulation, generally speaking. Of course they follow who they believe is Christ's vicar. What do you suggest they do differently? Their position has internal coherence.
-
Actually, Ryan Grant has admitted multiple times he is of Jєωιѕн descent. And so what? Ought we not judge people on the basis of their actions and statements?
Yeah, man. A chic who is of half Jєω blood gave me her phone number and email. I know she's baptized with water and Spirit, so the Deicidal curse is lifted, because I asked her if she was baptized. I know she's of half Jєω blood because she told me, too, but I knew by looking at her. She went to a Catholic school, too. She's real cute. I might court her.
-
This cattiness towards obedience downstream of a dangerous RnR articulation, generally. Of course they follow who they believe is Christ's vicar. What do you suggest they do differently? Their position has internal coherence.
Yes, their position does have internal coherence. I agree. For sedecavantists, internal coherence is important. But...you are expecting have be able to have internal coherence in a situation where it is very difficult to have internal coherence. In a Crisis in the Church, which we currently have, which has been brought on by the Church being occupied by a Modernist sect, and Modernists having infiltrated at least a century ago, internal coherence cannot be had, in my opinion. We do not live in normal times. Never in the history of the Church have heretics occupied Rome. In the Arian Crisis, heretics occupied much of Rome, but the Pope was not included.
Sedevacantists don't really focus much on the reasons for the Crisis, but the reasons are very important, since Modernism is a different kettle of fish from all of the other heresies that have afflicted the Church since its beginning. I can live with lack of internal coherence, because I am not God, and I am not a prophet. I do not know why God has allowed the Church to be occupied by Modernists. But I suspect, as many of R&R's have, that it has something to so with sin, and with Catholics not adhering to God's laws. But not only that. Love and charity is lacking in Modernism, since the salvation of souls is not an issue. They think that pretty much everyone is going to Heaven.
Love and Charity is also lacking in some Traditionalists. Sedevacantism is what is most important to some of them. Certainly not the love of God and neighbor. Only the law is what matters. Nothing else.
-
An Opus dei, Jєω-trad media pundit... outing a Jєω anti-pope. :laugh1:
If I understand your logic correctly, it goes like this:
Major: Opus Dei is a Jew-controlled infiltration and subversion group;
Minor: Prominent members of Opus Dei are influencing people toward sedevacantism.
Conclusion: Sedevacantism is a Jєωιѕн subversion tactic.
Is this what you are getting at?
-
Yeah, man. A chic who is of half Jєω blood gave me her phone number and email. I know she's baptized with water and Spirit, so the Deicidal curse is lifted, because I asked her if she was baptized. I know she's of half Jєω blood because she told me, too, but I knew by looking at her. She went to a Catholic school, too. She's real cute. I might court her.
"Lois", why would you court a woman?
-
"Lois", why would you court a woman?
https://youtu.be/_2LjwM3B688
-
…blah, blah, blah…sedes…blah, blah, blah…sedes…blah, blah, blah…sedes…blah, blah, blah…sedes…blah, blah, blah…sedes…blah, blah, blah…sedes…blah, blah, blah…sedes
-
…blah, blah, blah…sedes…blah, blah, blah…sedes…blah, blah, blah…sedes…blah, blah, blah…sedes…blah, blah, blah…sedes…blah, blah, blah…sedes…blah, blah, blah…sedes
-
Sedevacantists don't really focus much on the reasons for the Crisis
:confused: We talk about this all day in the ghetto.
-
All great points, bravo.
The thing that got me away from Ripperger was his constant revealing of what information he received from demons during exorcisms and how he then turns around and applies it to current events. There was one such instance where he claimed that a demon said things were coming to a head soon (paraphrasing) and I had to ask "so we're using the Roman Ritual for divination now?"
On top of that, his complete blindness to the situation with Bergoglio and adherence to the NO conservative party line just made me swear off of him altogether.
EXACTLY! And that is an interesting point you bring up – using the Roman Rite for divination! Phew!!!
He speaks so cavalierly about what should be treated with the utmost formality, discretion, and even secrecy. His referring to devils as “guys,” his incessant bragging about “beating up demons,” is puerile and irresponsible.
And he is now breeding a host of other creeping ghouls posing as devil biters. How about this trending piece of work?
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/CEg5M1Qk_M8/mqdefault.jpg)
Another problem I have with Ripperger and the conservative NO’s is authoritarianism. You will note that they beat the drum incessantly about authority, the veritable pinnacle of their apologia pro the fetid imposture they worship as the true ecclesiastical hierarchy. I have found that they are eminently satisfied with a fleshless skeleton – a tempo-material power (read:authority) stripped of all relation to Catholic truth, doctrine, and morality. They literally idolize authority. They worship authority. They slavishly serve authority, per se. When Vatican II accomplished the dissolution of Doctrine and Authority, the followers and servants of the miscreants choose authority over truth. The Catholic must choose truth over authority, because of ordination. Authority is ordered to Truth, and not vice versa. But these did not. These chose wrongly; and they are working feverishly to pollute the understanding of the entire membership of the Church.
If you go to the Regina Prophetarum blog, you will find novus ordo priest Sean Kopzcinski ever disseminating his novel religion of authority worship. He never insists on the integral Faith. Rather he incessantly insists on the need for authority. Nor does he define authority. Nor does he teach the essential attributes of ecclesiastical authority. Nor does he distinguish ecclesiastical authority from human purely authority. Nor does he propound the sine qua non principle that the Faith is not ordered to authority, but authority is ordered to the Faith. Faith is the term. Authority is not a term.
Kopzcinski is one of the best examples I can produce of the idol worship and authoritarianism running through the entire novus ordo. Before they openly worshiped pagan deities, the hierarchs forced their subjects to worship their illegitimate imposture in the name of authority. If we could build a statue to commemorate this fall into servitude, we would name it, not Lady Liberty, but Lord Authoritarius.
The end of all this error is idolatry. For having made naked authority their god, they are now incapacitated, as a punishment. When their overseers openly worship pagan deities, these slaves are powerless to resist, powerless to denounce, powerless to break away. They have lost all salt, and all power of virtuous operation.
There is a real distinction between true and legitimate authority and usurpation, the latter being the cause of all authoritarianism. Authoritarianism is the ape of true authority. Wherever you find depravity and usurpation, you will find tyranny, which is no more than authoritarianism posing as authority. Consider the authoritarianism of the communists and their proxy armies. Race authoritarianism. Sodomitical authoritarianism. Perversity and disorder are not merely shoved in our faces. We are beaten into submission by a virulent and jealous tyranny.
Now look at Ripperger et. al.. He and his “deliverance brotherhood” are taking authoritarianism to a new height – or to a new nadir. Not only do they worship naked authority as does Kopzcinski, but they add a twist of their own. They insert authoritarianism into “exorcism culture.”
God give me the grace to articulate what is in my mind.
I’m certain that demons are very much under the authority of God and the Celestial Hierarchy. They cannot so much as flinch without permissions. The Angelical ranks are composed in a wonderful order, and this order is replete with Divine and delegated authority. Authority might even be the hallmark attribute of the Intellectual Order.
And most certainly real exorcists understand this structure, adhere to it, and use it to the utmost advantage, being themselves in authority over demons by virtue of their Orders and Faculties.
But this real authority can be inverted, aped, usurped, duped, or exploited by demons, who desire only to deceive men.
I purchased ($0.99 kindle, thankfully) the Deliverance Prayers book put out by Ripperger. Another waste of cents, and another thing I never use.
As I skimmed it and perused the whole thing, my stomach was more and more in knots. It literally gave me anxiety. One false move, and you are going to become subjected to demons by trying to expel them. You are given a plethora of prayers (most likely “touched by” Ryan Grant), and a rulebot’s dream of caveats, proscriptions, warnings, threats. It is perfectly pharisaical, perfectly levitical, and perhaps cabbalistic. All of the threatenings boil down to one thing – do you have authority over the person, place, or thing you are praying over?
I’m just a layperson. I am not educated in theology and demonology. But my gut forces me to ask questions. First of all, why are laypeople in the demonic novus ordo being glutted with a superfluity of binding prayers that they are unable to wield? And who is doing the glutting but invalidly ordained clerics in business to propagate a false church?
I ask anyone here with learning – did the Church engage laypeople in minor exorcism ministration systems in the past? Were laypeople drafted into spiritual armies, and sent into battle with angelic princes, alone and armed only with books of prayers?
Why are laypeople being glutted with useless information about who has authority over demons, and in what circuмstances? Why are novus ordo “exorcists” the new tradlebrities? Why is exorcism trending, all the while demonic power continues to grow unchecked? Weren’t laypeople always simply urged to stay in the state of grace, to cast all their cares upon the Lord, to stay far away from all forms of superstition, and to have recourse to God, to the Mother of God, and to the Saints and Angels, to fight their battles for them?
What is this novel form of lay empowerment?
And why does it reek of levitical, tyrannical, authoritarian gnat straining?
Novus Ordo Inc. is luring people into a great big sucking vortex, which has satan for its eye. Witchcraft and idolatry are everywhere, their various and manifold forms designed to capture even the Elect, were that possible.
-
In short, what you're describing there is Pharasaism. When you place the letter of the Law above all other things, you are not operating in the spirit of Christ.
The authority of NO exorcists is one of those things that people try to point to in order to undermine arguments against the validity of NO orders. But, it's not the individual who has this authority, but Christ and His Holy Name. Protestants are able to cast out demons through deliverance prayers, but this has nothing to do with them personally, but the power of the prayers themselves in the Holy Ghost.
The same can be said of Ripperger. Yes, in normal times, priests have jurisdiction which gives them a certain authority over demons. But, NO priests do not have this because they are not priests. Yet, they are still able to cast out demons. This is because the rites in themselves are efficacious, and, Christ is permitting this efficacy for the sake of the souls involved so that they may see that the traditional Faith is true. Hence why the Vatican had to authorize the Rituale Romanum again because their NO rite wasn't doing it. Which has further shown that tradition has this power.
-
In short, what you're describing there is Pharasaism. When you place the letter of the Law above all other things, you are not operating in the spirit of Christ.
The authority of NO exorcists is one of those things that people try to point to in order to undermine arguments against the validity of NO orders. But, it's not the individual who has this authority, but Christ and His Holy Name. Protestants are able to cast out demons through deliverance prayers, but this has nothing to do with them personally, but the power of the prayers themselves in the Holy Ghost.
The same can be said of Ripperger. Yes, in normal times, priests have jurisdiction which gives them a certain authority over demons. But, NO priests do not have this because they are not priests. Yet, they are still able to cast out demons. This is because the rites in themselves are efficacious, and, Christ is permitting this efficacy for the sake of the souls involved so that they may see that the traditional Faith is true. Hence why the Vatican had to authorize the Rituale Romanum again because their NO rite wasn't doing it. Which has further shown that tradition has this power.
Man, O man. This is interesting.
You are affirming that people without valid Orders and without proper Faculties, are nevertheless kicking demons out of people's lives.
A couple of considerations:
1. If this is true, then they are exercising power over angelic princes over whom they have not a jot of real authority, per their own pronounced pecking order.
What does that say about their obsession with the minutia of who has authority over whom? Is it part and parcel of trying to trick the public into thinking they and their overlords wield real ecclesiastical authority? If you don't really need your own authority, because it is the authority of Christ that operates, then why do they go on and on with their mosaical rules and regs? Plausible cover?
And why has the Church always, in practice, made exorcists specialists of sorts? We know that demons are vengeful and very subtle. One needs training before undertaking battle with them, let alone authority to do the combat.
Do you know for certain that prots cast out demons? I know there is a passage in Scripture where independents were casting out devils in Jesus' Name, and our Lord did not denounce them.
2. Generally speaking, I am of the mind that they do not actually expel demons, but make things worse. I do not argue with you, though, because I am in the realm of speculation, and your speculations are as good as mine. We are told that by the fruits of a thing we may measure. I do not see good fruits, either in the prots or in the novus ordo. I see only that the time allotted to satan to increase his power has not been wasted by him.
In fact, Ripperger not that long ago finally admitted publicly in a podcast that statistically the amount of time needed to expel a demon has increased exponentially since the apostasy (my term). He admitted (implicitly) that they do not have the same power that real exorcists had. If you read between his lines, he admits that his ministry is a flop. And to strengthen that surmise, is the fact of his bragging that he fights Beelzebub himself, and wrests secrets from him. For that statement he recently made, is that Beelzebub himself literally sobbed and complained that the Heavenly Father is getting ready to take his power away. Ripperger is the public front of an impotent militia, but he would have you believe he beats, bites, commands, and debriefs the "big guns." I smell kabuki, and the Wizard of Oz.
3. Would you agree with me that rookies and people not in the state of grace place themselves in grave danger when they call devils out to fight?
4. Lastly, one cannot confect the Eucharist without valid ordination. It is Christ Who operates, but only through His appointed minister, who is not a mere inanimate instrument, but a real cooperator, an alter Christus. Likewise, an exorcist with proper faculties is personally in combat with demons, along with Christ, Whose power he wields, no? The priest is not a mere inanimate instrument, but a co-participant in the foray, no? Therefore, which individual human is doing battle, is important, no?
-
EXACTLY! And that is an interesting point you bring up – using the Roman Rite for divination! Phew!!!
He speaks so cavalierly about what should be treated with the utmost formality, discretion, and even secrecy. His referring to devils as “guys,” his incessant bragging about “beating up demons,” is puerile and irresponsible.
And he is now breeding a host of other creeping ghouls posing as devil biters. How about this trending piece of work?
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/CEg5M1Qk_M8/mqdefault.jpg)
Another problem I have with Ripperger and the conservative NO’s is authoritarianism. You will note that they beat the drum incessantly about authority, the veritable pinnacle of their apologia pro the fetid imposture they worship as the true ecclesiastical hierarchy. I have found that they are eminently satisfied with a fleshless skeleton – a tempo-material power (read:authority) stripped of all relation to Catholic truth, doctrine, and morality. They literally idolize authority. They worship authority. They slavishly serve authority, per se. When Vatican II accomplished the dissolution of Doctrine and Authority, the followers and servants of the miscreants choose authority over truth. The Catholic must choose truth over authority, because of ordination. Authority is ordered to Truth, and not vice versa. But these did not. These chose wrongly; and they are working feverishly to pollute the understanding of the entire membership of the Church.
If you go to the Regina Prophetarum blog, you will find novus ordo priest Sean Kopzcinski ever disseminating his novel religion of authority worship. He never insists on the integral Faith. Rather he incessantly insists on the need for authority. Nor does he define authority. Nor does he teach the essential attributes of ecclesiastical authority. Nor does he distinguish ecclesiastical authority from human purely authority. Nor does he propound the sine qua non principle that the Faith is not ordered to authority, but authority is ordered to the Faith. Faith is the term. Authority is not a term.
Kopzcinski is one of the best examples I can produce of the idol worship and authoritarianism running through the entire novus ordo. Before they openly worshiped pagan deities, the hierarchs forced their subjects to worship their illegitimate imposture in the name of authority. If we could build a statue to commemorate this fall into servitude, we would name it, not Lady Liberty, but Lord Authoritarius.
The end of all this error is idolatry. For having made naked authority their god, they are now incapacitated, as a punishment. When their overseers openly worship pagan deities, these slaves are powerless to resist, powerless to denounce, powerless to break away. They have lost all salt, and all power of virtuous operation.
There is a real distinction between true and legitimate authority and usurpation, the latter being the cause of all authoritarianism. Authoritarianism is the ape of true authority. Wherever you find depravity and usurpation, you will find tyranny, which is no more than authoritarianism posing as authority. Consider the authoritarianism of the communists and their proxy armies. Race authoritarianism. Sodomitical authoritarianism. Perversity and disorder are not merely shoved in our faces. We are beaten into submission by a virulent and jealous tyranny.
Now look at Ripperger et. al.. He and his “deliverance brotherhood” are taking authoritarianism to a new height – or to a new nadir. Not only do they worship naked authority as does Kopzcinski, but they add a twist of their own. They insert authoritarianism into “exorcism culture.”
God give me the grace to articulate what is in my mind.
I’m certain that demons are very much under the authority of God and the Celestial Hierarchy. They cannot so much as flinch without permissions. The Angelical ranks are composed in a wonderful order, and this order is replete with Divine and delegated authority. Authority might even be the hallmark attribute of the Intellectual Order.
And most certainly real exorcists understand this structure, adhere to it, and use it to the utmost advantage, being themselves in authority over demons by virtue of their Orders and Faculties.
But this real authority can be inverted, aped, usurped, duped, or exploited by demons, who desire only to deceive men.
I purchased ($0.99 kindle, thankfully) the Deliverance Prayers book put out by Ripperger. Another waste of cents, and another thing I never use.
As I skimmed it and perused the whole thing, my stomach was more and more in knots. It literally gave me anxiety. One false move, and you are going to become subjected to demons by trying to expel them. You are given a plethora of prayers (most likely “touched by” Ryan Grant), and a rulebot’s dream of caveats, proscriptions, warnings, threats. It is perfectly pharisaical, perfectly levitical, and perhaps cabbalistic. All of the threatenings boil down to one thing – do you have authority over the person, place, or thing you are praying over?
I’m just a layperson. I am not educated in theology and demonology. But my gut forces me to ask questions. First of all, why are laypeople in the demonic novus ordo being glutted with a superfluity of binding prayers that they are unable to wield? And who is doing the glutting but invalidly ordained clerics in business to propagate a false church?
I ask anyone here with learning – did the Church engage laypeople in minor exorcism ministration systems in the past? Were laypeople drafted into spiritual armies, and sent into battle with angelic princes, alone and armed only with books of prayers?
Why are laypeople being glutted with useless information about who has authority over demons, and in what circuмstances? Why are novus ordo “exorcists” the new tradlebrities? Why is exorcism trending, all the while demonic power continues to grow unchecked? Weren’t laypeople always simply urged to stay in the state of grace, to cast all their cares upon the Lord, to stay far away from all forms of superstition, and to have recourse to God, to the Mother of God, and to the Saints and Angels, to fight their battles for them?
What is this novel form of lay empowerment?
And why does it reek of levitical, tyrannical, authoritarian gnat straining?
Novus Ordo Inc. is luring people into a great big sucking vortex, which has satan for its eye. Witchcraft and idolatry are everywhere, their various and manifold forms designed to capture even the Elect, were that possible.
Agreed.
Here is Fr./b Pfeiffer's "lay exorcist" Paul Hernandez (aka Pablo, The Mexican, Chief in charge)
(https://i.imgur.com/XmstVuG.png)
https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/the-devil-and-mr-hernandez-6418725
-
Man, O man. This is interesting.
You are affirming that people without valid Orders and without proper Faculties, are nevertheless kicking demons out of people's lives.
A couple of considerations:
1. If this is true, then they are exercising power over angelic princes over whom they have not a jot of real authority, per their own pronounced pecking order.
What does that say about their obsession with the minutia of who has authority over whom? Is it part and parcel of trying to trick the public into thinking they and their overlords wield real ecclesiastical authority? If you don't really need your own authority, because it is the authority of Christ that operates, then why do they go on and on with their mosaical rules and regs? Plausible cover?
They genuinely believe they are Catholic priests, for starters. So I don't think there's any intent on their part of deceit, but, they are being used as tools of Satan to promote the false church.
Do you know for certain that prots cast out demons? I know there is a passage in Scripture where independents were casting out devils in Jesus' Name, and our Lord did not denounce them.
Look in to "deliverance services" and you'll see how Protestants handle "exorcism". As for Our Lord's commendation of using His Name, that would fall under what I suspect about the influence these men are wielding to effect deliverance through the prayers. Our Lord also said the following:
"Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity." [Matt. 7:22-23]
3. Would you agree with me that rookies and people not in the state of grace place themselves in grave danger when they call devils out to fight?
Yes, undoubtedly they do because they are already under the dominion of Satan.
Responses in red
-
:confused: We talk about this all day in the ghetto.
I wasn't aware of that. You discuss the heresy of Modernism all day?
In my experience, the reasons for the Crisis/heresy isn't all that important to sedevacantist. It's only important that the Francis is a heretic, and that's that. And even though he is a non-Catholic, he should still be focused on incessantly and obsessively, though in reality he's just some guy in Rome claiming to be the Pope.
-
focused on incessantly and obsessively… blah, blah, blah sedevacantism… blah, blah, blah sedevacantists…blah, blah, blah sedes…blah, blah, blah sedevacantism…blah, blah, blah sedes… blah, blah, blah sedevacantists…blah, blah, blah sedes…
-
All great points, bravo.
The thing that got me away from Ripperger was his constant revealing of what information he received from demons during exorcisms and how he then turns around and applies it to current events. There was one such instance where he claimed that a demon said things were coming to a head soon (paraphrasing) and I had to ask "so we're using the Roman Ritual for divination now?"
On top of that, his complete blindness to the situation with Bergoglio and adherence to the NO conservative party line just made me swear off of him altogether.
I've always had a bit of an issue with this. My understanding had been that Catholic priests were instructed never to interact with demons apart from performing the Rite of Exorcism. And one of the first rules is that DEMONS LIE. So you can't really put much stock in anything they say.
-
Nuances can be very useful, except when dealing with those who hold that R&R is heretical and schismatic. Not much point in nuances. But you're right in the sense that you really only consider those who follow R&R to be heretical and schismatic.
:facepalm: Let me repeat this for probably the 25th time. I do not hold that all articulations of what's very broadly (and unhelpfully) called "R&R" are "heretical". And it's also a lie that I only consider R&R to be heretical and/or schismatic. I think that various flavors of dogmatic SVism (while not heretical) are schismatic. But none of this matters to you or else you're not capable of understanding it.
-
I wasn't aware of that. You discuss the heresy of Modernism all day?
In my experience, the reasons for the Crisis/heresy isn't all that important to sedevacantist. It's only important that the Francis is a heretic, and that's that. And even though he is a non-Catholic, he should still be focused on incessantly and obsessively, though in reality he's just some guy in Rome claiming to be the Pope.
Meg, please be honest. We discuss ecclesiology and the implication of that for the Church.
If you would honestly engage with us you would realize our position is consistent. I hold 0 ill will against you but you need to overcome these mental blocks/insanity. You and Sean both don't take the vaccine your Pope says should be taken out of love for fellow man, you both don't attend the liturgy he implores is the lex orandi of your Faith etc. Pope St.Pius X on RnR and obedience:(https://i.postimg.cc/XYDdyW4h/loving-the-pope.jpg)Your position is attractive but simply untenable.
-
:facepalm: Let me repeat this for probably the 25th time. I do not hold that all articulations of what's very broadly (and unhelpfully) called "R&R" are "heretical". And it's also a lie that I only consider R&R to be heretical and/or schismatic. I think that various flavors of dogmatic SVism (while not heretical) are schismatic. But none of this matters to you or else you're not capable of understanding it.
Actually no one has said it better than Meg herself:
Hi, I'm new to the forum. I'm a regular on FE, but given the recent scandal there, I'm not sure if I can go back there. I would like to participate on a forum where Catholics are serious about their faith. However, I'm not really a fan of the SSPX, so I'll avoid those topics which have to do with the SSPX, or Sedevacantism. If I do posts in those sections, remind me that I said I wouldn't!
God bless!
-
Hi, I'm new to the forum. I'm a regular on FE, but given the recent scandal there, I'm not sure if I can go back there. I would like to participate on a forum where Catholics are serious about their faith. However, I'm not really a fan of the SSPX, so I'll avoid those topics which have to do with the SSPX, or Sedevacantism. If I do posts in those sections, remind me that I said I wouldn't!
God bless!
Priceless!
:laugh2:
-
Meg, please be honest. We discuss ecclesiology and the implication of that for the Church.
If you would honestly engage with us you would realize our position is consistent. I hold 0 ill will against you but you need to overcome these mental blocks/insanity. You and Sean both don't take the vaccine your Pope says should be taken out of love for fellow man, you both don't attend the liturgy he implores is the lex orandi of your Faith etc. Pope St.Pius X on RnR and obedience:(https://i.postimg.cc/XYDdyW4h/loving-the-pope.jpg)Your position is attractive but simply untenable.
So you do not discuss the implications of Modernism. You implied that you did. You see, the term "Modernism" actually has to be referred to, in order to qualify as discussing Modernism.
-
:facepalm: Let me repeat this for probably the 25th time. I do not hold that all articulations of what's very broadly (and unhelpfully) called "R&R" are "heretical". And it's also a lie that I only consider R&R to be heretical and/or schismatic. I think that various flavors of dogmatic SVism (while not heretical) are schismatic. But none of this matters to you or else you're not capable of understanding it.
I do understand it. You are on this forum to convert R&R to sedevacantism. Actually, you want all trads to convert to sedevacantism. And your behavior is condoned by the owner of the forum.
-
So you do not discuss the implications of Modernism. You implied that you did. You see, the term "Modernism" actually has to be referred to, in order to qualify as discussing Modernism.
:facepalm:
This is another dishonest assertion, unless you think the VII ecclesiology is entirely orthodox and not infected with Modernism.
-
:facepalm:
This is another dishonest assertion, unless you think the VII ecclesiology is entirely orthodox and not infected with Modernism.
Your discussion is geared toward the authority of the Pope. You may use quotes from St. Pius X, but you are not actually discussing Modernism. You only care about the authority of the Pope, and not the actual heresy of Modernism. Only that which will further your chance to convert trads to sedevacantism is discussed.
-
Your discussion is geared toward the authority of the Pope. You may use quotes from St. Pius X, but you are not actually discussing Modernism. You only care about the authority of the Pope, and not the actual heresy of Modernism. Only that which will further your chance to convert trads to sedevacantism is discussed.
You need to retract saying I don't care about the heresy of Modernism, because I do. I'm going to disengage from this discussion with you because it clearly is not productive. God bless you Meg.
-
You need to retract saying I don't care about the heresy of Modernism, because I do. I'm going to disengage from this discussion with you because it clearly is not productive. God bless you Meg.
Where, exactly, is Modernism mentioned in the quote you provided? Maybe I missed it.
-
I do understand it.
You don't. But ... if you did, then you simply don't care about facts.
-
I would like to think it's that she can't semantically parse a whole post into different parts so I will not argue with someone who is incapable of argument. I publicly retract saying Meg is dishonest and do not hold she is being dishonest.
-
focused on incessantly and obsessively… blah, blah, blah sedevacantism… blah, blah, blah sedevacantists…blah, blah, blah sedes…blah, blah, blah sedevacantism…blah, blah, blah sedes… blah, blah, blah sedevacantists…blah, blah, blah sedes…
What a world. Monkey pox, imminent world war, and the shrew is back.
-
You don't. But ... if you did, then you simply don't care about facts.
Your opinions, which change often and are not consistent, do not necessarily qualify as "Facts".
-
Your opinions, which change often and are not consistent, do not necessarily qualify as "Facts".
While I do occasionally change my mind on a subject, on this matter I've been very consistent for years. I have a more nuanced position that is actually rather in between the extremes of dogmatic SVism and dogmatic R&Rism. I have been critical of both extremes, but find anything between the issues with the extremes to be acceptable ...
Dogmatic SPism :::: +Lefebvre ::: Chazal ::: Moderate SVism/SPism ::: Dogmatic SVism
Issues I have are with both the extremes in bold. I disagree with straight SVism but favor more SPism and Father Chazal's opinion (who thinks of himself as R&R). I find +Lefebvre's position to be acceptable (if you don't try to distort it and falsely make him out to be a dogmatic sedeprivationist .. which he was not), though I disagree with his lack of properly articulating it (which as led to the evolution of dogmatic R&Rism).
But your mind, it's a binary ... either R&R or SVism ( you lump it all as "sedes", a nonsensical term, since SPs are also "sedes"). Nor is SPism straight SVism, but more akin to Father Chazal's opinion (although there are some dogmatic SPist types).
So your perception of "changing often" and not being "consistent" are merely a product of your mind being unable to grasp the nuances above. You see in binary: R&R vs. SV. You simply can't comprehend how I might disagree and agree at the same time with some of these positions.
-
So I see Meg has derailed yet another thread. Why do you all continue to respond to her? I respond to her if she has substantive things to say, but if it's her usual anti-sede/anti-Matthew tirades, I just ignore her.
-
So I see Meg has derailed yet another thread. Why do you all continue to respond to her? I respond to her if she has substantive things to say, but if it's her usual anti-sede/anti-Matthew tirades, I just ignore her.
She is to sedevacantist-related threads what Dankward or Marion are to FE-related threads. They come out of the woodwork and start deriding everyone else in order to derail it. Ignore and move on.
-
Your discussion is geared toward the authority of the Pope. You may use quotes from St. Pius X, but you are not actually discussing Modernism. You only care about the authority of the Pope, and not the actual heresy of Modernism. Only that which will further your chance to convert trads to sedevacantism is discussed.
Meg is right... sede-vacantism is wrong. The Seat IS occupied.
We have a jew anti-pope who is occupying the Seat.
-
Meg is right... sede-vacantism is wrong. The Seat IS occupied.
We have a Jєω anti-pope who is occupying the Seat.
:laugh1: Isn't the seat empty because Pope Michael just died? :laugh2:
-
:laugh1: Isn't the seat empty because Pope Michael just died? :laugh2:
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-piFjgaR4iIo/UYP3ZVw2CjI/AAAAAAAALok/n3QK5JvdU1k/s1600/Andy-Dwyer.gif)
-
I can't believe how so many Catholics still are so naive about these "converted" media Jєωs.
I've been duped a million times, and I presume that my mind is always full of unperceived illusions. We live in a pigsty. Hard not to get soiled. :cowboy:
-
Agreed.
Here is Fr./b Pfeiffer's "lay exorcist" Paul Hernandez (aka Pablo, The Mexican, Chief in charge)
(https://i.imgur.com/XmstVuG.png)
https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/the-devil-and-mr-hernandez-6418725
:laugh1:
Your picture says more than my thousands of words!!!
-
To: DL
Thanks for your clarifications! Most helpful!
-
:laugh1: Isn't the seat empty because Pope Michael just died? :laugh2:
Now that the See is empty again, perhaps we should hold a conclave here on CathInfo ... and elect our own CI Pope.
-
Now that the See is empty again, perhaps we should hold a conclave here on CathInfo ... and elect our own CI Pope.
Do you mean a CI member for fun or actual clerics? And maybe, if for fun, we can just make it about who would make a good pope rather than make fun of "Pope" Michael after his death...
-
Now that the See is empty again, perhaps we should hold a conclave here on CathInfo ... and elect our own CI Pope.
I elect Br. Michael Dimond
:trollface:
-
Interestingly I recently purchased the Ryan Grant translation of St. Alphonsus' Moral Theology. I'm in the first section which is on conscience, and I found the translation awkward, so that I could not comprehend the definition given for vincible ignorance; and there were other sentences hard to wrest.
Now I'm no stranger to St. Thomas and to St. Alphonsus, both of whom I find eminently intelligible.
This strange wordstringing has given me pause. Now I think I might know the problem. I did not before know Grant's background.
I'm certainly ticked that I wasted my money on something I now cannot trust. Happily it was the kindle edition, so I'm only out a ten spot.
Grant certainly does have a face. Thanks, Incred, for alerting us to the facts of lineage regarding these media cucks.
I have his translations of De Controversiis, Doctrina Christiana, etc.
It's terrible. There's loads of typos, even in the Contents page.
Here's what some guy wrote on Amazon for De Romano Pontifice:
This book is a piece of Counter-Reformation apologetic/polemic on the Papacy. Robert Bellarmine uses 4 types of evidence - The Bible, Church Fathers, Medieval authors (including Byzantine authors) and contemporary authors (mainly Protestant). Bellermine argues a range of topics from straightforward ones like 'Was Peter ever in Rome?' (which was denied by John Calvin) to the monarchy of the pontiff to the question on the identify of the Antichrist (many Protestants had claimed that title for the popes).
The breadth of Robert Bellarmine scholarship is astounding. I am impressed by the level of his scholarship. He shows himself a much more competent historian than his Protestant opponents. He quotes or refers to hundreds of texts and dozens of authors. Most are quoted accurately and mostly authentic works are used. The odd one out is the synopsis of Dorotheus of Tyre (pages 174,176,185). that is attributed to a 4th century saint but is actually a middle Byzantine forgery. Curiously, Bellarmine seems to recognise a problem with it (page 176) but keeps on using it anyway (page 185). This book gave me a good idea of what Bellarmine opponents were saying (he often quotes them) but it did make me curious to read them. Unfortunately, none of them have been translated into English.
I find myself agreeing with much of what Bellarmine is saying. Being neither Protestant or Roman Catholic I can let the arguments stand for themselves without being clouded by emotion. Clearly the place of the Papacy was a very thorny issue for both sides. Probably Bellarmine's greatest fault is projecting a Medieval Papacy onto the evidence of the earlier period. I found Bellarmine's use of Nilus Kabasilas to be much more extensive than I had presumed. He quotes or refers to him about 20 times. As the Orthodox approach the Papacy quite differently from Protestantism I wondered why Bellarmine felt the need to include Nilus. Perhaps Nilus' treatise on the Popes was circulating in Protestant circles.
There book has a number of problems. One is the massive number of authors used by Bellarmine makes it difficult to figure out who is who. On page 217 Ryan Grant has a note that explains that Theodore Balsamon is an important Byzantine canonist. That is great but he doesn't do it for most of the other authors. Don't get me wrong, there is no need to explain who Jerome, Epiphanius or John Chrysostom are but there are plenty of others who need an introduction. Bellarmine refers to a 'Nicephorus' on multiple occasions (for example pages 134,142,193,265). I presumed he meant Patriarch Nicephorus (or Nikephoros) of Constantinople from the early ninth century but further reading made me realise that Nikephoros Kallistos Xanthopoulos from the 14th century is actually meant. Similarly the mention of a 'Euthymius' (pages 72, 134,147,154) left me puzzled as it is a fairly common Orthodox monastic name. As the quotes come from New Testament/Gospel commentaries I realised it must be Euthymios Zigabenos from the 12th century. I am unsure how many readers realise that Zonaras (page 257) or Cedrenus (pages 370,372) are Byzantine chroniclers or that Evagrius (page 219) is actually Evagrius Scholasticus, a 6th century church historian.
As I am knowledgeable in Byzantine history I was able to identity the individuals but I had no idea who some of Bellarmine's contemporaries were. Luther, Calvin and Bullinger are well known but Matthias Flacius, David Chytraeus and Theodore Bibliander were completely new to me. To find their confessional allegiances I had to look them up. There are lots of references to the 'Centuriators' (page 83 for an early example) or the 'Centuriators of Magdeburg' (page 394) as one of Bellarmine's main targets. These were a Lutheran historical work from 1559 to 1574 in thirteen volumes (each volume containing a century up to 1300). I wish this had been made clear to me what it was at the start. What this book needed was a brief appendix of names and works cited to ease the confusion.
I found a few mistakes but nothing serious. On page 297 it reads 'Accordingly Gortynae the bishop of Crete, held the place of Roman Pontiff, as can be seen by the history of Basil' (page 297). The next page refers to 'Bishop Gortyae'. There is clearly some confusion as Gortyna was the capital of Crete (and seat of the primate of the island) and not a person.
Time for nit-picking – Names
There are a lot of names that are not recognisable due to the strange was they have been translated. For example, the Council of Serdica (343 AD) is called ‘Sardica’ and ‘Sardia’ on the same page (page 286). Titus became bishop of Crete but he is called ‘Titus Cretensis’ so it is difficult to see that Crete is actually meant. Gennadius Scholarius is correctly called that (pages 324,233) but at the start of the book he is called ‘Gennadius Scholarium’. Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople is called ‘Anatholus’ and Arethas is called ‘Aerthas’ (page 373) and ‘Aretha’ (page 390) despite his name being correctly translated on other pages (for example 358,436,439). The early Gnostic Cerinthus is called ‘Cherinthus’ (page 454) and the infamous Monothelite Macarius of Antioch is called ‘Macharius the Monothilite’ (page 481). Rufinus of Aquileia (also known as Tyrannius Rufinus or just Rufinus) is referred to as ‘Ruffinus’ throughout the book (pages 154,222,292,432,482), which is confusing as I have never seen his name written that way. The notorious Monophysite Peter Mongus is called ‘Peter Gnaphaeus’ (page 481), which I presume is Latin for ‘hoarse’ (the meaning of his Greek nickname). Then there is ‘Felix Nolan’ (page 434) instead of the usual Felix of Nola. Felix Nolan reminds me of a guy who works in a supermarket. The second century Church Father Hegesippus is called ‘Egesippus’ (page 137) and the Byzantine Emperor Manuel Komnenos is called 'Emmanuel' (page 147).Then there is mention of Justinian deposing a pope named 'Sylverius' (page 306) when the usual rendering of his name in English is Silverius.
More nit-picking – typos
I have to admit I’m not the best at proofreading but there a number of typos. There is ‘Dionisius’ instead of Dionysius on page 217 and synopsis is spelt incorrectly on page 176. A number of names have different spelling within close proximity. For example, the Gallic poet Sedulius is called ‘Sedulus’ on page 390 but a few pages later it is spelt correctly (page 396).
I mean, his translation is trash but is there anything intentionally misleading? I haven't read the books yet but I skimmed through the heretical pope part of De Romano Pontifice and it's 100% sede so it seems he didn't touch anything.
-
Granted, of course.
But there are facts to be considered.
A simple google search reveals that Grant is an editor at TAN books. We know the new TAN and the old TAN are not the same entity.
Grant is an author at OnePeter5, the very same entity that promotes Doc Kwack.
As I said above, he is a pas de deux with Chad Ripperger, and I think, translates many of the books peddled by Ripperger.
Now if you go over to a website called liberchristo, you will find that it trains novus ordo priests, deacons, and layfolk to be exorcists or exorcists' helpers. And that is not all you will find. Go to the section entitled Videos:
https://www.liberchristo.org/videos/
You will see some talks by Ripperger, but even more talks by one Kyle Clement, a layman. Listen to him, and it won't take you long to discern that he is a charismatic and inserts charismania into his trainings.
That is not just a run of the mill "NO beware" red flag. It is a smoking gun, as we know that charismania is identical to new age channeling. Charismania in an exorcism setting presents to my mind an extreme danger to the poor person already being manipulated and handled by exorcists without valid orders, and who come to them via deceit, i.e., through the vector of the illegitimate and satanic authority of a non-Catholic, infidel sect.
I've always found Ripperger to be a mixed bag, but I was frankly shocked to see that he actually associates himself with charismania in his "deliverance ministry." This caused me to decide to finally avoid him completely, after years of head scratching because of the strange things he often says.
None of these facts point to lineage as reasons for caution. They are concerning on their own merits. But when lineage is linked up with concerning behavior, that fact enhances rather than lessens concerns; because sad experience teaches us to be very leery of the "conversions" of these people.
Bottom line: Grant and all of his affiliates work for NovusOrdo Inc. They work to keep the the false hierarchy of the novus ordo in power, and to keep Catholics subjected to infidel overlords. You may rest assured that they also work behind the scenes to keep real Catholics out of the media and out of the publishing profession. It's the mafia, again and again.
These compromised "Catholics" dominate the airwaves and throw us dogs crumbs. They make sure the integral Faith has no wide audience. They do not defend the Faith. Rather they offer just enough truth to keep people from leaving the burning building. I would call them Halflings, but that would be an insult to Hobbits.
I know personally of a case when some charismatic laymen were performing "exorcism" on someone and one of the women had a miscarriage on the spot. She is still doing the same type of things to this day. Incredible how some people never learn.
-
I mean, his translation is trash but is there anything intentionally misleading? I haven't read the books yet but I skimmed through the heretical pope part of De Romano Pontifice and it's 100% sede so it seems he didn't touch anything.
I honestly think it's amateurish incompetence and laziness. Like I, and Simeon, said about his translation of Moral Theology: there's a lot of sections in that book which are difficult to understand because of the translation. St. Alphonsus is a very clear writer, which is reflected in his books translated by others, but this book falters because Grant simply doesn't appear to be a good Latinist. Sure, he does a great service translating these books that would otherwise be left untranslated, but that doesn't excuse the sloppiness and confusing nature of some of them.
I question if there's also a factor of it being an independent publisher problem, as many independent works and translations don't utilize editors to catch these things. I noticed this with E. Michael Jones's book Logos Rising, where he basically abuses certain sources to the point where entire sections are basically paraphrasing other works, something that I remember being a big no-no in my college history courses.
-
I honestly think it's amateurish incompetence and laziness. Like I, and Simeon, said about his translation of Moral Theology: there's a lot of sections in that book which are difficult to understand because of the translation. St. Alphonsus is a very clear writer, which is reflected in his books translated by others, but this book falters because Grant simply doesn't appear to be a good Latinist. Sure, he does a great service translating these books that would otherwise be left untranslated, but that doesn't excuse the sloppiness and confusing nature of some of them.
I question if there's also a factor of it being an independent publisher problem, as many independent works and translations don't utilize editors to catch these things. I noticed this with E. Michael Jones's book Logos Rising, where he basically abuses certain sources to the point where entire sections are basically paraphrasing other works, something that I remember being a big no-no in my college history courses.
I also think it is just lazy or rushed.
Just was a bit suspicious now that he's of Jєωιѕн descent. Could mean nothing though.
-
I also think it is just lazy or rushed.
Just was a bit suspicious now that he's of Jєωιѕн descent. Could mean nothing though.
While he's of Jєωιѕн descent, I think he's sincere in trying to be Catholic. One doesn't employ themselves in something as time-consuming as translating Catholic Latin works without some zeal for the subject.
-
Good Morning Servus and DL!
Servus, you said: “I have his translations of De Controversiis, Doctrina Christiana, etc., and it's terrible. There's loads of typos, even in the Contents page … his translation is trash but is there anything intentionally misleading?”
DL, you said: “I honestly think it's amateurish incompetence and laziness … this book falters because Grant simply doesn't appear to be a good Latinist … I question if there's also a factor of it being an independent publisher problem … I noticed this with E. Michael Jones's book Logos Rising, where he basically abuses certain sources to the point where entire sections are basically paraphrasing other works, something that I remember being a big no-no in my college history courses.”
Okay gentlemen, I’m going to stick with my theme of authority versus authoritarianism.
When you really think about it, Grant and Jones are just as rogue as the SSPX or any other independent outfit. They would have the public believe that they are acting under the authority of the Church, that they are Nihil Obstated and Imprimatured and congratulated out the wazoo.
But let’s be clear. To be “sent” by the novus ordo to do its dirty work, is not to be sent by God or by Christ.
These authors have zero authority from the Church, zero credentials from the Church, zero accountability to the Church, and therefore zero worth, if we compare their odious slop with the limpid works of St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Alphonsus, and every other true Catholic author.
I purchased one and only one book scrawled by EMJ, The Jєωιѕн Revolutionary Spirit. That taught me a lesson. DL, you have nailed it!!!! I remember writing papers in college and grad school. I had reams of yellow legal pads filled with quotes and jotted down thoughts. Later I took those tools to the writing process and produced quality work. You have written nothing at all, if all you produce is a regurgitation of your naked research. But that’s what Mr. Academia does. He serially commits the atrocious crime of publishing abhorrently bad writing.
Now he would never have gotten away with this business in the days of the hierarchy. His work would have been scrutinized; and if it failed to meet the standards of the Church, he would have been told not to publish. Had he published anyway, his work would have wound up on the Index, and no one would have read it.
But the case of Grant is more serious, even grave. He is producing works that relate directly to faith, doctrine, and morals; and which therefore come under the direct purview and authority of the hierarchy. When have the Popes and the Bishops ever allowed a self-proclaimed lay “Latin scholar” to set up his own shop and disseminate shoddy attempts that pose as authoritative translations of saintly, scholarly, and magisterial works?
This was the sole province of priests! And they published not a word without a microscopic scrutiny of their work, without an authoritative ratification via Imprimatur. The work Grant is doing falls directly under the authority of the hierarchy to teach, defend, and preserve the Faith from all error and imprecise language.
Grant is a rudderless, “headless” cowboy, prancing around a Wild West saloon with a gun and holster. He is his own authority, or worse – he is a tool of the false hierarchy that couldn’t care less what someone says or writes, provided he does not say or write in defense of the Faith. Grant could roll out a scroll of imprimaturs from the false hierarchy, and he would still never be anything more or less than an entrepreneur, who has sent himself.
Because remember, for all his translations of saintly and scholarly works, there are his other convenient "ministrations" on countless blogs and podcasts, wherein he strives to keep the novus ordo propped up. I don't think it would be unreasonable to assess his "good works" to be no more than the sliver of truth necessary for evil to be palatable.
"Oh look! Ryan is sooooooooo traditional! Look how he pores over the old texts. Look how he studied Latin! He must then be correct about everything! Let us never even think of abandoning the novus ordo, for if we do, then we abandon the Church."
The same can be said of Ripperger and every other pseudo-trad wolf peddling the novus ordo in one sheep costume after another.
Grant is the unfruitful consequence of the authority problem. These perverse novus ordos have no ecclesiastical authority, they are not in Holy Orders, and they have defected from the Faith. But because they wear the lipstick and warpaint of affected authority, they succeed to honor, credibility, and lucrative exploits in the world.
The novus ordo media boys make believe they are under authority, are ratified by the “hierarchy,” are in good standing with their “local ordinary,” blah blah. They come to you with the novus ordo good housekeeping seal.
They are rogue.
They are incompetent.
They are not of God.
-
Good Morning Servus and DL!
Servus, you said: “I have his translations of De Controversiis, Doctrina Christiana, etc., and it's terrible. There's loads of typos, even in the Contents page … his translation is trash but is there anything intentionally misleading?”
DL, you said: “I honestly think it's amateurish incompetence and laziness … this book falters because Grant simply doesn't appear to be a good Latinist … I question if there's also a factor of it being an independent publisher problem … I noticed this with E. Michael Jones's book Logos Rising, where he basically abuses certain sources to the point where entire sections are basically paraphrasing other works, something that I remember being a big no-no in my college history courses.”
Okay gentlemen, I’m going to stick with my theme of authority versus authoritarianism.
When you really think about it, Grant and Jones are just as rogue as the SSPX or any other independent outfit. They would have the public believe that they are acting under the authority of the Church, that they are Nihil Obstated and Imprimatured and congratulated out the wazoo.
But let’s be clear. To be “sent” by the novus ordo to do its dirty work, is not to be sent by God or by Christ.
These authors have zero authority from the Church, zero credentials from the Church, zero accountability to the Church, and therefore zero worth, if we compare their odious slop with the limpid works of St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Alphonsus, and every other true Catholic author.
I purchased one and only one book scrawled by EMJ, The Jєωιѕн Revolutionary Spirit. That taught me a lesson. DL, you have nailed it!!!! I remember writing papers in college and grad school. I had reams of yellow legal pads filled with quotes and jotted down thoughts. Later I took those tools to the writing process and produced quality work. You have written nothing at all, if all you produce is a regurgitation of your naked research. But that’s what Mr. Academia does. He serially commits the atrocious crime of publishing abhorrently bad writing.
Now he would never have gotten away with this business in the days of the hierarchy. His work would have been scrutinized; and if it failed to meet the standards of the Church, he would have been told not to publish. Had he published anyway, his work would have wound up on the Index, and no one would have read it.
But the case of Grant is more serious, even grave. He is producing works that relate directly to faith, doctrine, and morals; and which therefore come under the direct purview and authority of the hierarchy. When have the Popes and the Bishops ever allowed a self-proclaimed lay “Latin scholar” to set up his own shop and disseminate shoddy attempts that pose as authoritative translations of saintly, scholarly, and magisterial works?
This was the sole province of priests! And they published not a word without a microscopic scrutiny of their work, without an authoritative ratification via Imprimatur. The work Grant is doing falls directly under the authority of the hierarchy to teach, defend, and preserve the Faith from all error and imprecise language.
Grant is a rudderless, “headless” cowboy, prancing around a Wild West saloon with a gun and holster. He is his own authority, or worse – he is a tool of the false hierarchy that couldn’t care less what someone says or writes, provided he does not say or write in defense of the Faith. Grant could roll out a scroll of imprimaturs from the false hierarchy, and he would still never be anything more or less than an entrepreneur, who has sent himself.
Because remember, for all his translations of saintly and scholarly works, there are his other convenient "ministrations" on countless blogs and podcasts, wherein he strives to keep the novus ordo propped up. I don't think it would be unreasonable to assess his "good works" to be no more than the sliver of truth necessary for evil to be palatable.
"Oh look! Ryan is sooooooooo traditional! Look how he pores over the old texts. Look how he studied Latin! He must then be correct about everything! Let us never even think of abandoning the novus ordo, for if we do, then we abandon the Church."
The same can be said of Ripperger and every other pseudo-trad wolf peddling the novus ordo in one sheep costume after another.
Grant is the unfruitful consequence of the authority problem. These perverse novus ordos have no ecclesiastical authority, they are not in Holy Orders, and they have defected from the Faith. But because they wear the lipstick and warpaint of affected authority, they succeed to honor, credibility, and lucrative exploits in the world.
The novus ordo media boys make believe they are under authority, are ratified by the “hierarchy,” are in good standing with their “local ordinary,” blah blah. They come to you with the novus ordo good housekeeping seal.
They are rogue.
They are incompetent.
They are not of God.
I agree with the gist of what you're saying, nevertheless, I wouldn't put it so forcefully.
I am glad that someone translated much needed works from Bellarmine. If I was relying only on imprimatur and nihil obstat sources I might as well stop reading.
These days you can hardly find any good old books in my native language, let alone theology. Modernist translations from one of the only Catholic publishing houses in the country will have to do. Don't worry, I'm aware they might've changed things but for the most part the translations are good.
-
And why has the Church always, in practice, made exorcists specialists of sorts? We know that demons are vengeful and very subtle. One needs training before undertaking battle with them, let alone authority to do the combat.
3. Would you agree with me that rookies and people not in the state of grace place themselves in grave danger when they call devils out to fight?
I be kickin' Satan's azz
-
Good Morning Servus and DL!
Servus, you said: “I have his translations of De Controversiis, Doctrina Christiana, etc., and it's terrible. There's loads of typos, even in the Contents page … his translation is trash but is there anything intentionally misleading?”
DL, you said: “I honestly think it's amateurish incompetence and laziness … this book falters because Grant simply doesn't appear to be a good Latinist … I question if there's also a factor of it being an independent publisher problem … I noticed this with E. Michael Jones's book Logos Rising, where he basically abuses certain sources to the point where entire sections are basically paraphrasing other works, something that I remember being a big no-no in my college history courses.”
Okay gentlemen, I’m going to stick with my theme of authority versus authoritarianism.
When you really think about it, Grant and Jones are just as rogue as the SSPX or any other independent outfit. They would have the public believe that they are acting under the authority of the Church, that they are Nihil Obstated and Imprimatured and congratulated out the wazoo.
But let’s be clear. To be “sent” by the novus ordo to do its dirty work, is not to be sent by God or by Christ.
These authors have zero authority from the Church, zero credentials from the Church, zero accountability to the Church, and therefore zero worth, if we compare their odious slop with the limpid works of St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Alphonsus, and every other true Catholic author.
I purchased one and only one book scrawled by EMJ, The Jєωιѕн Revolutionary Spirit. That taught me a lesson. DL, you have nailed it!!!! I remember writing papers in college and grad school. I had reams of yellow legal pads filled with quotes and jotted down thoughts. Later I took those tools to the writing process and produced quality work. You have written nothing at all, if all you produce is a regurgitation of your naked research. But that’s what Mr. Academia does. He serially commits the atrocious crime of publishing abhorrently bad writing.
Now he would never have gotten away with this business in the days of the hierarchy. His work would have been scrutinized; and if it failed to meet the standards of the Church, he would have been told not to publish. Had he published anyway, his work would have wound up on the Index, and no one would have read it.
But the case of Grant is more serious, even grave. He is producing works that relate directly to faith, doctrine, and morals; and which therefore come under the direct purview and authority of the hierarchy. When have the Popes and the Bishops ever allowed a self-proclaimed lay “Latin scholar” to set up his own shop and disseminate shoddy attempts that pose as authoritative translations of saintly, scholarly, and magisterial works?
This was the sole province of priests! And they published not a word without a microscopic scrutiny of their work, without an authoritative ratification via Imprimatur. The work Grant is doing falls directly under the authority of the hierarchy to teach, defend, and preserve the Faith from all error and imprecise language.
Grant is a rudderless, “headless” cowboy, prancing around a Wild West saloon with a gun and holster. He is his own authority, or worse – he is a tool of the false hierarchy that couldn’t care less what someone says or writes, provided he does not say or write in defense of the Faith. Grant could roll out a scroll of imprimaturs from the false hierarchy, and he would still never be anything more or less than an entrepreneur, who has sent himself.
Because remember, for all his translations of saintly and scholarly works, there are his other convenient "ministrations" on countless blogs and podcasts, wherein he strives to keep the novus ordo propped up. I don't think it would be unreasonable to assess his "good works" to be no more than the sliver of truth necessary for evil to be palatable.
"Oh look! Ryan is sooooooooo traditional! Look how he pores over the old texts. Look how he studied Latin! He must then be correct about everything! Let us never even think of abandoning the novus ordo, for if we do, then we abandon the Church."
The same can be said of Ripperger and every other pseudo-trad wolf peddling the novus ordo in one sheep costume after another.
Grant is the unfruitful consequence of the authority problem. These perverse novus ordos have no ecclesiastical authority, they are not in Holy Orders, and they have defected from the Faith. But because they wear the lipstick and warpaint of affected authority, they succeed to honor, credibility, and lucrative exploits in the world.
The novus ordo media boys make believe they are under authority, are ratified by the “hierarchy,” are in good standing with their “local ordinary,” blah blah. They come to you with the novus ordo good housekeeping seal.
They are rogue.
They are incompetent.
They are not of God.
You may be right. Again, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt here, as we should. But even MHFM gave a scathing critique of Grant after he refused to debate them years ago.
https://youtu.be/_xGG2xPlr-c
https://youtu.be/Y_s0mZPhyGk
-
I be kickin' Satan's azz
That's the exact kind of attitude that would put you in danger during an exorcism, tough guy.
-
That's the exact kind of attitude that would put you in danger during an exorcism, tough guy.
I've already whooped Satan's azz. I don't run from that loser.
-
You may be right. Again, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt here, as we should. But even MHFM gave a scathing critique of Grant after he refused to debate them years ago.
Let's be honest here. Isn't that exactly how they would respond to anyone who refused to debate them?
-
I agree with the gist of what you're saying, nevertheless, I wouldn't put it so forcefully.
I am glad that someone translated much needed works from Bellarmine. If I was relying only on imprimatur and nihil obstat sources I might as well stop reading.
These days you can hardly find any good old books in my native language, let alone theology. Modernist translations from one of the only Catholic publishing houses in the country will have to do. Don't worry, I'm aware they might've changed things but for the most part the translations are good.
From the beginning of my conversion, I've always had almost a fanatical preoccupation with correct translations and Church authorization of anything I read or pray. I believe these have the anointing of the Holy Ghost on them, and that anything lacking proper authorization has a great potency for ill effects in the soul. I would rather do without a book than read an unauthorized translation.
And the Church is no less a stickler. Consider how aggressively She has defended Her right to determine the quality of the publications of Catholics. Consider also the pristine precision of Her definitions and explanations. This is something that cannot be ignored or diminished without terrible effects.
All this being said, the truth is that one need not much more than a solid Catholic formation to comprehend that the novus ordo is not the Roman Catholic Church.
Where have all the theology manuals gotten any of us? The trad movement is in shambles because of rogues imposing their manifold positions as dogmas.
More and more I realize we have to wait for God to restore proper Church authority.
-
I be kickin' Satan's azz
What's an "azz?"
-
You may be right. Again, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt here, as we should. But even MHFM gave a scathing critique of Grant after he refused to debate them years ago.
Give the benefit of the doubt as to his intentions, yes. But no quarter to the damage he is wreaking everywhere. I think it's good we discussed this.
-
Let's be honest here. Isn't that exactly how they would respond to anyone who refused to debate them?
Hmmm....yes, yes you're right. They definitely tend to do that whenever anyone refuses a debate.
-
That's the exact kind of attitude that would put you in danger during an exorcism, tough guy.
Says the dandelion who cowers to his wife everyday.
-
Says the dandelion who cowers to his wife everyday.
(https://c.tenor.com/ySfmdH6lgLsAAAAC/haha-agamemnon.gif)
-
Says the dandelion who cowers to his wife everyday.
With all the name calling that goes on at CI, ' dandelion ' is a new one I haven't come across before!! :laugh1::laugh2::laugh1::jester:
-
This is interesting, and right on point.
I get a real kick out of all their "analytics" and "hypotheses" to explain this phenomenon.
They never even approach the real reason - a veritable sign in itself of their absolute inefficacy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=covnJgIK5Tc
-
That looks like an interesting video I'll listen to.
Father Amorth described the NO Exorcism Rite as ineffective. But there's also the question of ... are the NO priests even valid, and I doubt Marshall and Fr. Ripperger would ever go there.
Finally, even if an exorcism seems effective, it's very possible for the devil to simply voluntarily vacate if his agenda is to try to affirm in people's minds that NO Orders are valid even if they aren't.
I always find it important not to draw theological conclusions from various phenomena ("miracles", exorcisms, etc.) Devil can manipulate all those types of things quite easily. That is the mind of the Church. Church has never accepted various doctrinal pronouncements from private revelation based on the credibility of the phenomena, but rather assessed the credibility of the phenomena by whether or not the doctrine conforms to that of the Church (and other factors). But if the doctrine of private revelation is problematic, the Church dismisses the revelation as illegitimate (either a fraud or diabolical in origin).
-
That looks like an interesting video I'll listen to.
Father Amorth described the NO Exorcism Rite as ineffective. But there's also the question of ... are the NO priests even valid, and I doubt Marshall and Fr. Ripperger would ever go there.
Of course they wouldn't, because it would mean for Dr. Marshall that he would lose a significant portion of his fan base. And, even more gravely, Chad Ripperger would be faced with the reality that he may not even be a priest, let alone exorcist.
God bless +Ripperger for his great conferences on the nature of angels and demons, as well as exorcism, but he needs to realize that he's just another instrument of Satan meant to keep people in the NO.
Finally, even if an exorcism seems effective, it's very possible for the devil to simply voluntarily vacate if his agenda is to try to affirm in people's minds that NO Orders are valid even if they aren't.
I always find it important not to draw theological conclusions from various phenomena ("miracles", exorcisms, etc.) Devil can manipulate all those types of things quite easily. That is the mind of the Church. Church has never accepted various doctrinal pronouncements from private revelation based on the credibility of the phenomena, but rather assessed the credibility of the phenomena by whether or not the doctrine conforms to that of the Church (and other factors). But if the doctrine of private revelation is problematic, the Church dismisses the revelation as illegitimate (either a fraud or diabolical in origin).
The exorcism question was one that really tempted me to accept NO orders for the longest time, and I know of others I've spoken to that remain convinced by the miracles and exorcisms.
As I said to Simeon earlier in the thread, it is Christ that ultimately makes the exorcism efficacious if it is successful because His Name has power. But it doesn't mean the person is a part of the Body. He addressed this in the Gospels:
Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity. - Matt. 7:22-23
-
The exorcism question was one that really tempted me to accept NO orders for the longest time, and I know of others I've spoken to that remain convinced by the miracles and exorcisms.
Yes, and that to me speaks to why the devil might simulate miracles and exorcisms. We can't simply use those types of things to draw theological conclusions from. Not only do you have people being persuaded by Eucharistic so-called "miracles" that the NO Mass is valid, but even that it's acceptable and pleasing to God. I do not believe that God would ever work a legitimate Eucharistic miracle tied to the NOM, nor, for instance, among the Orthodox ... because God would not will to give the impression that either the NOM or Orthodoxy, etc. are pleasing to Him.
With regard to exorcisms, it's not technically necessary to have valid Holy Orders to perform exorcisms. Exorcist is actually a Minor Order, and most theologians hold that the Minor Orders do not confer any character but are merely appointments by the Church. What's key in exorcism is the authority of the Church, which can even, in theory, be granted ad hoc to someone without Orders. Perhaps that's where Pablo thinks he's received his commission. Conversely, as Father Ripperger repeatedly points out, simply having Holy Orders ... without authorization from a bishop ... does not suffice for an effective exorcism. There's nothing inherent in the priestly character about the power to perform exorcisms. And, of course, finally, if the devil wanted specifically to create the impression (as you mention being tempted by) that NO Orders are valid, he can either simply abandon the possessed person in response to an NO exorcism or just could go quiet or dormant and cease to manifest himself, thereby giving the impression that he was removed by the exorcism.
Generally speaking, however, demons do not like to make "showy" possessions. Those actually tend to strengthen faith among doubters, have them believe in the preternatural and supernatural. People can be "scared" by it into becoming more serious about their faith. Their favorite tactics entail being unnoticed and unseen. For the most part it's only because God forces them to manifest themselves that they'll actually do so. What does the show actually benefit them? It actually hurts their cause. They like to go unseen and attract people to sin with false allurements, making sin attractive to people rather than scaring them away from it. But here might be another reason they'd want to manifest their activity, precisely in order to trick people into believing that the NO is legitimate and valid and pleasing to God.
On the flip side, when you have Traditional priests who have performed successful exorcisms, one might be tempted to argue from there that God supplied the authority for them to do it, and that's quite plausible (and it's what I believe), but in theory that also might be simulation from the devil if his intent was to create the impression that God was supplying jurisdiction even when He was not.
So in both directions we can't draw theological conclusions from outward phenomena. I do hold that God would supply jurisdiction / authority to Traditional priests, but I do not use exorcisms, miracles, private revelations, etc. to come to those conclusions. I could try to pull the same stunt, "Look, Bishop McKenna performed a legitimate exorcism. See, God does supply jurisdiction or authority to Trad priests." or if a +Thuc priest performed a exorcism, "See, I told you their orders are valid." I do believe that to be the case, that God supplies the necessary authority to Trad priests/bishops and also that the +Thuc Orders are (mostly) valid ... but I could not use exorcisms as evidence in favor of that.
LOL, that reminds me of a story that my brother Steve (God rest his soul) told me. He was talking to a lady about the consecration of Bishop Dolan. Steve mentioned the doubts out there about the +Thuc line, and the lady responded that she "knew" it was valid because when she was there (present for the consecration rite) she "sensed the Holy Ghost." :laugh1:
-
Yes, and that to me speaks to why the devil might simulate miracles and exorcisms. We can't simply use those types of things to draw theological conclusions from. Not only do you have people being persuaded by Eucharistic so-called "miracles" that the NO Mass is valid, but even that it's acceptable and pleasing to God. I do not believe that God would ever work a legitimate Eucharistic miracle tied to the NOM, nor, for instance, among the Orthodox ... because God would not will to give the impression that either the NOM or Orthodoxy, etc. are pleasing to Him.
With regard to exorcisms, it's not technically necessary to have valid Holy Orders to perform exorcisms. Exorcist is actually a Minor Order, and most theologians hold that the Minor Orders do not confer any character but are merely appointments by the Church. What's key in exorcism is the authority of the Church, which can even, in theory, be granted ad hoc to someone without Orders. Perhaps that's where Pablo thinks he's received his commission. Conversely, as Father Ripperger repeatedly points out, simply having Holy Orders ... without authorization from a bishop ... does not suffice for an effective exorcism. There's nothing inherent in the priestly character about the power to perform exorcisms. And, of course, finally, if the devil wanted specifically to create the impression (as you mention being tempted by) that NO Orders are valid, he can either simply abandon the possessed person in response to an NO exorcism or just could go quiet or dormant and cease to manifest himself, thereby giving the impression that he was removed by the exorcism.
Generally speaking, however, demons do not like to make "showy" possessions. Those actually tend to strengthen faith among doubters, have them believe in the preternatural and supernatural. People can be "scared" by it into becoming more serious about their faith. Their favorite tactics entail being unnoticed and unseen. For the most part it's only because God forces them to manifest themselves that they'll actually do so. What does the show actually benefit them? It actually hurts their cause. They like to go unseen and attract people to sin with false allurements, making sin attractive to people rather than scaring them away from it. But here might be another reason they'd want to manifest their activity, precisely in order to trick people into believing that the NO is legitimate and valid and pleasing to God.
On the flip side, when you have Traditional priests who have performed successful exorcisms, one might be tempted to argue from there that God supplied the authority for them to do it, and that's quite plausible (and it's what I believe), but in theory that also might be simulation from the devil if his intent was to create the impression that God was supplying jurisdiction even when He was not.
So in both directions we can't draw theological conclusions from outward phenomena. I do hold that God would supply jurisdiction / authority to Traditional priests, but I do not use exorcisms, miracles, private revelations, etc. to come to those conclusions. I could try to pull the same stunt, "Look, Bishop McKenna performed a legitimate exorcism. See, God does supply jurisdiction or authority to Trad priests." or if a +Thuc priest performed a exorcism, "See, I told you their orders are valid." I do believe that to be the case, that God supplies the necessary authority to Trad priests/bishops and also that the +Thuc Orders are (mostly) valid ... but I could not use exorcisms as evidence in favor of that.
LOL, that reminds me of a story that my brother Steve (God rest his soul) told me. He was talking to a lady about the consecration of Bishop Dolan. Steve mentioned the doubts out there about the +Thuc line, and the lady responded that she "knew" it was valid because when she was there (present for the consecration rite) she "sensed the Holy Ghost." :laugh1:
Sort of off topic but I was listening to a byzantine catholic priest interviewed the other day and he said all eastern catholic priests (at least byzantine) are exorcists.. I believe he said they are able to perform exorcisms without seeking any approval.
-
With regard to exorcisms, it's not technically necessary to have valid Holy Orders to perform exorcisms. Exorcist is actually a Minor Order, and most theologians hold that the Minor Orders do not confer any character but are merely appointments by the Church. What's key in exorcism is the authority of the Church, which can even, in theory, be granted ad hoc to someone without Orders.
Apologies ... I need to edit my post and have to leave for work.... I'll add it when I get to work. In the meantime I was agreeing with what you said.
-
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]Editing[/color]
Fixed it for you......
We have it on the authority of all early writers who refer to the subject at all that in the first centuries not only the clergy, but lay Christians also were able by the power of Christ to deliver demoniacs or energumens, and their success was appealed to by the early Apologists as a strong argument for the Divinity of the Christian religion (Justin Martyr, First Apology 6; Dialogue with Trypho 30 and 85; Minutius Felix, Octavius 27; Origen, Against Celsus I.25; VII.4; VII.67; Tertullian, Apology 22, 23; etc.). As is clear from testimonies referred to, no magical or superstitious means were employed, but in those early centuries, as in later times, a simple and authoritative adjuration addressed to the demon in the name of God, and more especially in the name of Christ crucified, was the usual form of exorcism.
-
Fixed it for you......
We have it on the authority of all early writers who refer to the subject at all that in the first centuries not only the clergy, but lay Christians also were able by the power of Christ to deliver demoniacs or energumens, and their success was appealed to by the early Apologists as a strong argument for the Divinity of the Christian religion (Justin Martyr, First Apology 6; Dialogue with Trypho 30 and 85; Minutius Felix, Octavius 27; Origen, Against Celsus I.25; VII.4; VII.67; Tertullian, Apology 22, 23; etc.). As is clear from testimonies referred to, no magical or superstitious means were employed, but in those early centuries, as in later times, a simple and authoritative adjuration addressed to the demon in the name of God, and more especially in the name of Christ crucified, was the usual form of exorcism.
Thank you, I had copied it from here ...
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05709a.htm
.... and proceeded to paste it here without using the preview feature.
Lesson learned :fryingpan:
-
Has anyone here acquired a copy of Fr Ripperger's Dominion ? Mine should be here by this Saturday.
Also, is anyone familiar with Fr Ripperger's Deliverance Prayers For The Laity ? I bought a copy of it a few months ago and have been praying the Auxilium Christianorum prayers daily.
-
Fr Vincent Lampert, exorcist from Indianapolis, gave a talk at a local parish. He mentioned the new rite of exorcism and wasn't shy about criticizing it. It wouldn't surprise me if some exorcists use the old rite anyway.
-
Catholics are not supposed to believe easily that anyone is obsessed by the devil, and only to believe someone to be obsessed who meets certain rather strict criteria.
This is explained in the traditional Roman Ritual (https://liturgia.it/content/ritrom.pdf), page 269 in the text. Paragraph 3 says:
[The exorcist] must first of all not easily believe that someone is obsessed by the devil, but he must have known signs by which the obsessed is distinguished from those who suffer from some disease, especially mental disease. The signs of obsession of the devil can be: to speak many words in an unknown language, or to understand someone speaking in such a language, to make known distant or hidden things, to demonstrate strength above what is natural for his age and condition, and other things of this nature, which are greater signs if many of them occur at once.
I have to wonder if Fr. Ripperger mentions these rules of the Church in his sermons or if he warns people against too easily believing people to be obsessed, as the Church warns even exorcists themselves, as here. Just imagine what the Church would say to all those little old Novus Ordo ladies who listen obsessively (sorry) to Fr. Ripperger and think they can identify people who are obsessed by the devil.
And note that even one of those extraordinary signs don't seem to be considered sufficient, but only to establish a certain amount of probability, which becomes greater the more of those extraordinary signs occur at the same time. See how careful the Church was before Vatican 2 to avoid superstition and keep sound judgment! Now, in the New Church you have either complete rationalism on the one hand, and in the conservative branch of the Novus Ordo Church, where Fr. Ripperger resides, you have the opposite extreme where everyone who groans weird is considered obsessed, and he even preaches sermons on how to drive demons away yourself!
-
Very interesting posts yesterday. I cannot reply now, as duties of state press. But it so happens I am in Matthew's Gospel of late, and I always take Lapide with me on those journeys. And, providentially, I happen to be in Chapter 7, and no less, verses 22 and 23:
"22. Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? 23. And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity."
I want to post here for now what Lapide says, for it is not without interest:
"Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied, &c. Have we not foretold future events by Thy light and grace? So Maldonatus. Or otherwise, Have we not by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, by Thy commission and authority taught and preached the true faith? So Jansen.
And done many wonderful works. He calls wonderful works, or miracles, virtue, as it is in the Greek and Vulgate. And those real miracles. For it is plain from this verse that God does sometimes work miracles even by false prophets, as He did by Judas the traitor (Luke x. 17, &c.) and Caiaphas (John xi. 49.) And Balaam the soothsayer (Numb. xxiv. 3). S. Jerorne says, “To work miracles is sometimes not because of his goodness who works them: but it is the invocation of the name of Christ which performs them for the good of others.” Whence S. Gregory collects (lib. 20, Moral. 8): “The proof of sanctity is not the performance of miracles, but to love one’s neighbour as oneself, and to think of God what is true, and to think better of one’s neighbour than of oneself.”
Observe, although impious and false teachers may, by the gift of God, prophesy and work miracles, yet they cannot do this for the confirmation of false doctrine. For a miracle, even a solitary one, so long as it is real and plain, is not only a probable, but a morally certain proof of true doctrine, whence Christ and the Apostles use it as an inviolable argument for proving the Christian faith. Nor do we ever read of a miracle being wrought in confirmation of heresy or error. And à priori reasoning shows this. For a miracle is a singular and supernatural operation of God alone, by which, as by His own seal, God attests the right faith and truth, wherefore if God should hearken to a false teacher calling upon Him to confirm his error by a miracle, He would seem to co-operate with him, and attest his error, and by consequence, lie and deceive, which is impossible. For God is the Prime Verity, and the Truth itself, and He has reserved the power of working miracles to Himself alone, that by them, as a testimony peculiar to Himself, He may seal His own Word and His own Truth, and testify that they emanate from Him. A miracle therefore is as it were the Voice of God working and attesting that He does speak; and He confirms His words by it as by a seal. For other things are common to God, with angels, and devils. Wherefore in them it is doubtful whether God, or an angel, or the devil speaks and works. So D. Thomas (2a. 2æ,. quæst. 178, art. 2) and theologians passim. And S. Augustine (lib. Contra Epist. Fundamenti, c. 4) declares that he was held in the Church by the chains of miracles. And Richard de S. Victor says, (lib. 1 de Trinit. c. 2), “0 Lord, if it be error which we believe, we have been deceived by Thee. For our faith has been confirmed among us by such signs and wonders as could not have been wrought unless they were done by Thee.” (See also Bellarmine, lib. 4, On the notes of the Church, c. 14.)
Let us observe, however, here, that if the gift of miracles has been given to any one by God for any reason, as an abiding habit, or condition, such a one may afterwards abuse the gift, and work the miracle for an evil end, such, for example, as vain glory, gain, or the confirmation of what is false. For in such a case God concurs indeed with the miracle itself but not with the abuse of it, or with the evil object of him who works it. For this He only permits. Thus God concurs with an impious priest in the consecration of the Eucharist, even though the priest intends to abuse it for the purposes of sorcery, or blasphemy, yea even to sell it to a Jєω to mock at and pierce it. And understand this, that I have said as to a wicked man abusing the gift of miracles, upon the principle, that any grace given by God for one end may be abused by evil men for another end. For it is plain that the power of consecration is given by God to a priest for one end, although he may abuse his power for another end. Still it appertains to the providence of God not to allow an impious man to abuse the grace of miracles to deceive others so as to lead them into heresy, if this misuse should be entirely hidden from them. For then men without any fault of their own, and on the authority, as it would appear, of God’s attestation would be led into error, which is impossible. Neither could God correct or amend their error by another miracle. For men would say that if the first miracle were wrought for the confirmation of what is false, by parity of reasoning, the second also might be wrought for the confirmation of what is false: so that God would, as it were, disarm Himself, and deprive Himself of the power of declaring and attesting the truth, and confuting error. For this consists in the working of miracles. In the case of those whom the common people call Saviours, even when they are of evil life, it is plain, says Navarrus in his Manuale, that the gift of curing diseases has been given them by God for the common good of the Church, and that they can abuse this gift for evil purposes. So also in Flanders, they say that those who are born on Good Friday, and also a seventh son, sprung in continual descent from a seventh son, are able to cure the King’s Evil by touching it. But the gift is given by God to the former in honour of Good Friday, and the mystery of Christ’s Death and Passion, and to the latter in honour of wedlock, to show that it has been honoured and instituted by God, and raised by Christ to the dignity of a Sacrament. Wherefore if any should use this power for evil, we can see that it is the man who is abusing his gift, not God who is co-operating with him for evil. Thus it is said that the same power of curing the King’s Evil has been given to the kings of England and France, on account of the merits of King Edward the Confessor. Indeed, one Tucker, a Protestant, wrote a Book about the persons cured of the King’s Evil, by Elizabeth, late Queen of England. But he is completely confuted by Delrio, in Magicis (lib. 1, c. 3, 9. 4).
At any rate up to the present time there is no case on record in which it can be shown that any one who had even the habitual gift, has wrought a miracle for the confirmation of heresy, or false doctrine, unless we choose to allow that Calvin, pretending in confirmation of his heresy to raise a supposed dead man to life, who was really alive, God, to punish the deceit, caused the man to die. But all such miracles, as it were indications of perfidy, condemn heresy and confirm the true faith.
Ver. 23.—And then will I confess unto them, &c. “I Christ, will say unto the false prophets, who have taught and done miracles in My Name, in the Judgment Day, I knew you indeed as My prophets, who did miracles in My Name: but as My friends and sons whom I predestinated to the inheritance of My glory, I know you not. That is, I do not love and delight in you, because the will and law of My Heavenly Father, which ye taught unto others with your mouths, ye have not fulfilled in your deeds. Go ye therefore into everlasting fire, because ye have wrought iniquity.” So says S. Augustine; and S. Gregory says, “Christ deserts them as unknown whom He did not know for the merit of their lives.” (Hom. 12 in Evangel.) This knowledge therefore of God is not speculative, but practical, loving, and affectionate: as we are said to know those whom we love, and not to know those whom we dislike."
-
Long video but ~ the 16:59 mark it really gets to the truth.
https://youtu.be/ETJaEjbHkaU
-
Long video but ~ the 16:59 mark it really gets to the truth.
https://youtu.be/ETJaEjbHkaU
I attended that conference. Good stuff.