Some sedevacantists (certainly not all) want to make anyone who is not a sedevacantist look bad. Especially if they are affiliated with the conciliar church, and not open to sedevacantism. I suspect that that's the problem here, for some, with Fr. Ripperger.

I just looked up how to use the Ignore feature. For anyone else who just felt the need to engage this option, the way to do it is to hover your mouse over "Profile", and go down to Summary. Hover over "Modify Profile" and select "Buddies/Ignore List", and go to "Edit Ignore List." Type "Meg" in the "Member" field, and click "Add".

Problem solved.

Good advice. I've used the ignore feature many times. It can be very helpful.

Though the ignore feature may prove useful in ignoring certain annoying forum members (like me), it will not solve the problem of too many sedevacantists on this forum.

So is the Church wrong to forbid everyone to cast out devils except exorcists appointed by the bishop?

Solemn Exorcism is not the same as private Adjuration. Fr Ripperger has never implied otherwise.

You are grasping for an angle that doesn't fly when presented to those who know better.

You will have to view my post that was previous to the post you quoted, in order to see what it has to do with the thread. Did you miss it?

No, I didn't miss it. My point being that you, once again, are shifting the discussion to us evil "sedevacantists" as some cause behind disapproval of some Conciliar cleric or teaching. No one was talking about the subject of sedevacantism, or the group of Catholics who adhere to it, until you decided to bring it up.

So is the Church wrong to forbid everyone to cast out devils except exorcists appointed by the bishop?

Indeed, we have another closeted Prot believing that his interpretation of Scripture trumps the teaching and the practice of the Church.

Look, even RATZINGER rejected the notion of the Laity attempting to perform exorcism-type "deliverance" rites.  He rejects lay "deliverance" using the exact same term that Ripperge uses.  I'd love to hear Ripperger's explanation of why he's promoting something condemned by the "authority" (as he holds it to be) of the Church ... while condemning "Trads" from rejecting that same authority.

Nor was Ratzinger JUST talking about deliverance "groups", but it's clear tha he was objecting to laity involved in such things, period, basically saying the same thing that the saints have said ... that we the laity should have recourse to Our Lady and the Angels for protection against demons ... and should not be enngaging them as if we had authority over them somehow.

This notion that the Laity have some authority over demons has no theological foundation.

Indeed, Our Lord's Redemption freed us from being SUBJECT to the demons, but does that make the demons subject to us?  I'm not seeing it.

Now, Ripperger's claim is that we can command them in the context of when we have authority over those being afflicted by them.  But do we really?  Recall that GOD is in complete control and command of the demons.  He in turn has granted that authority to "The Twelve" in Sacred Scripture, i.e. the Church and the hierarchy.  That is why "Exorcist" is a Minor Order.  Otherwise, it would be superflouous if the Laity had this authority per se by virtue of their Baptism.

Just because I have rights over something, do my commands have any authority?  If I see some malefactor trying to steal my car, can I command that person, "In the name of Jesus, I command you to stop and to be gone.  That is my car.  I claim ownership of it."  I can try.  But if we lack the AUTHORITY to enforce said command, it's merely a solemn request ... which in fact reduces to a deprecation.  That is why it's so dangerous.  St. Thomas explained that it's grave sin to issue a deprecatory request to demons because it puts us in fellowship with them.

So, if we don't have direct authority over demons, we're at great risk of being in a deprecatory mode that both St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus condemn a grave sin.  In fact, they hold that it would be grave sin even for an Exorcist who does have authority over demons.

St. Alphonsus, when discussing imperative (St. Thomas uses "of compulsion") command, cites Exorcists as having authority over demons, and nowhere does he state that the faithful have such authority.  St. Thomas never states what NewAdvent claims, that "all the faithful" have this authority.  All he's discussing is where in principle it's possible or appropriate to command demon, but does not discuss the particulars or who or under what conditions (except that it cannot be deprecatory, nor can it be in order to extract some benefit from the demons, even a benefit that might glorify God, but ONLY to repel the demonic attacks ... except on the rare occasion that some saint might be inspired to do so).

So, returning to my prior analogy, where I try to command a car thief to cease and desist because I have ownership of the car.  That thief is not inclined to respect my ownership of the car.  He will cease only when law enforcement or some authority FORCES him to cease.  Similarly, the demons are NOT inclined to be subject to or respect the authority of God.  They hate God and are in open rebellion.  Rebellion against God is what defines them.  So the only way they will comply with my "command" ("imprecatory adjuration") is NOT because I have rights over (authority over) my wife and my children, as they do not will to comply with it (if they did, they wouldn't be demons but would be angels instead) is because they are FORCED TO BY GOD (and the Angels that God has empowered to be His enforcers).  Am I empowered somehow to make a citizen's arrest, as it were?  There's no evidence for this.  We can pray to God, Our Blessed Mother, and the Angels to help us, as they DO have authority over the demons, and they absolutely CAN command them with complete authority, just as law enforcement can arrive and arrest that car thief in my example.

For to issue imperative adjurations to the demons is like me opting to take on the criminal myself instead of calling the police, who could immediately take care of the problem.

We know that Our Lord bestowed authority over demons to the Church, to the Apostles, and the Church's Tradition has been to them bestow this authority on the ministers who represent her, and as such they exercise the Church's own authority over demons.

If all the faithful have this authority, that would render the Church's practice of conferring the Minor Order of Exorcist on clergy to be completely superfluous and even non-sensical.

And, based on this premise, why CAN'T any layman pick up the Church's Rite of Exorcism and then use it against some demons that are afflicting his family, who are under his authority.  What's the difference exactly?  There is no difference.  It's not permitted because it's always been understood that one had to have the Church's authority to issue imperative adjurations against demons.

I can turn and spin this topic in every direction, but there is not a single justification for it to be found.  Even if it WERE somehow acceptable (it's not), then there's still a lot wrong with it.  Catholics have always differed from Prots in that we exercise humility in acknowledging that Our Lady, the Angels, and the saints are closer to God and more likely to have their prayers heard by God, with Our Lady pretty much infallibly so.  And yet with this practice we're supposed to think that we have a better chance of imperatively adjuring the demons OURSELVES than Our Lady or our Angels would?  Seriously?  Someone who's pushing this trash needs to justify the reward vs. the risk here.  We risk stepping out of line and getting retaliated on (perhaps even possessed) by the demons by taking them on, so there's the risk.  And the reward?  Somehow believing we're more powerful with demons than Our Lady and the Angels are?  Do we believe that demons have the ability to do anything apart from what God permits them to do, and that we have to bring them into line somehow?  Just like the aforementioned car thief, if we command the demons to stop even when God has permitted them to do something, they will retaliate for our attempt to stop them ... unless God prevents it.  If we try to stop them ourselves, there's a good chance we end up dead.

At one point, I had been so duped by Ripperger's mis-articulated distortions of Tradition that I believed that I could command my Guardian Angel to take care of my loved ones.  Hey, why not?  We have auhority to issue commands for them to protect our wives and our children, since we have authority over the latter.  I have since apologized to my Guardian Angel for the hubris of this.  Now Ripperger needs to retract all his nonsense, and the people who support him have to stop pushing this garbage.  HolyAngels in particular continues to pertinaciously push this trash ... since out of pride, he cannot admit that he's mistaken.  I admit that I was mistaken in falling for Ripperger's nonsense, and I have apologized to my Guardian Angel, and I have asked Our Lady and the Angels to please undo whatever harm may have been cause by my use of Ripperger's Deliverence Prayers.

Honestly, outside of Ripperger, I can't really think of any other precedent, that I have come across, that permits the laity to do what Ripperger claims to teach. Sure, the Warrens claim having efficacy in their exorcism prayers, but these tend to be the standards of the Ave, Pater, and Saint Michael more than something out of the Ritual Romanum (which they know they cannot use themselves). Citing the disciples and associates of Christ in the Gospels performing lay-exorcisms is an extraordinary exception, not a norm. Traditionally, the standard is a valid priest with jurisdiction from his bishop.

The lack of jurisdiction and Orders would explain why these demons are so difficult to exorcise these days: as, in my view, a decrease in grace (via scattered Shepherds) could translate to an increase of Satan's dominion over men. So Ripperger spending months to years exorcizing a possessed person (if they are truly delivered in the end) would most likely have to do with a lack of proper Orders than anything.

The accounts of Bishop McKenna, or other traditionally-ordained clerics, involvement in exorcisms never seem to last that long; if the accounts of the Warrens and others are to be believed.

Yes, after Yeti pointed this out, I tried to jog my memory.  I've read many, many books by the saints and Doctors, etc. and never once did I recall any of them encouraging the laity to directly command demons.  That is a decidedly Protestant mindset that Ripperger has injected into Traditional Catholicism because he has a veneer of Traditionalism and talks a lot about St. Thomas Aquinas, etc.

I agree about the lack of jurisdiction being a problem.  And then, in cases where it DOES "appear to be" effective, it could VERY EASILY be a demonic ruse PRECISELY in order to perpetuate the notion that the NO have valid priests.  It's part of their deception.  In fact, a lot of Prots have claimed success in exorcisms.  Again, this is done by the demons precisely in order to promote religious indifferentism, to make people doubt that the Church and the Church Alone has the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ.  It's the simplest of all stunts to pull off.  They just manifest themsleves, and then whe some Prot performs an Exorcism, they take off or just go quiet, making it appear as if it was successful.

What do they really accomplish with all their dramatic possessions?  They only end up making people believe in the preternatural, and to fear the evil.  So why would they shoot themselves in the foot this way?  Their best tactic is in fact to convince people that they don't exist.  What do they have to gain by causing people to turn their heads 360 degrees and projectile vomit across the room ... besides enriching some of the Hollywood Jєωs who are in their service?

I believe that most if not all of the outward manifestations of possession are in fact FORCED by God AGAINST the demons' wills ... for the very reasons cited, and also for them to be FORCED to show themselves so they can be dealt with by the Church.

Too many even Traditional Catholics are duped by things like Prots performing "exorcisms" or NO priests performing the same, or alleged NO "Eucharistic miracles" ... all of which would be absolutely trivial for demons to simulate and fake, given God's permission to do so.

And God has permitted them to do a lot, in order to sift the faithful.  We do NOT draw theological conclusions from phenomena like these.

And just as God has forced the demons to show themselves in cases of outward possession, so too God has FORCED the evil enemies who have infiltrated the Church and usurped the papacy to SHOW THEMSELVES.  If God had not done so, they could have subtly infiltrated and changed one tiny sentence here and aother there so that they would end up boiling the frog unaware.  Had they just snuck some stuff into V2, the simple faithful who do not have theological training could have been more easily taken in.  But because God forced them to show themselves, by their fruits, the simplest of faithful can simply conclude, "That is not the Catholic Church," and the simple sheep recognize "That is not the voice of My Master."  No theological training required.  Meanwhile the "wise" and the "intelligent" of the world are brought low by error, whereas the simple and uneducated are exalted with the True Faith.