Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Matthew on March 05, 2013, 10:08:27 PM
-
Effective immediately, no links are permitted to websites owned or operated by a "lay exorcist" -- a concept foreign to Catholic sensibility.
Such as this man, known as "Pablo-the-Mexican":
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2001-02-08/feature/the-devil-and-mr-hernandez/
Any attempts to link to such sites will be
A) automatically censored by the software -- certain websites automatically become "CathInfo"
B) Any attempts to circuмvent these measures will result in disciplinary action, up to and including being banned from CathInfo.
I still strongly support the Resistance, and I encourage all supporters to help out in any way they can -- recording, processing, and/or uploading sermons, setting up blogs, youtube channels and websites, and in general helping to get the word out.
Padrepio is doing a great job posting the Fathers' schedules on here -- she is most welcome to continue doing this.
Unfortunately, her site is the most complicated. I have no problems with her, or her management of the site. However, I can no longer in good conscience allow any links to her site, as she only owns the domain name to her site. The current website itself is a "[lay exorcist] production" and all e-mails to the webmaster are sent to the lay exorcist in question.
Considering this is supposed to be the Resistance "headquarters" website, that is intolerable.
I am *not* trying to make CathInfo into a monopoly when it comes to Resistance news, etc.
But I DO want all Resistance websites, especially the main ones, to be owned and operated by Catholics of sound mental and emotional health. But they must also not advertise a "brand" or "logo" representing mental illness, nor should they filter all communications through a man with obvious mental illness.
God loves all men, including those with handicaps. He loves men and women with physical, mental, emotional, and/or spiritual illness. But He doesn't will that they be promoted to jobs they can't handle, such as "Media Spokesman for the anti-Modernist Resistance".
Just look at God's Church -- men with gross deformities, insufficient mental capacity, emotional disorders, etc. are not qualified for the priesthood. That is because they would cause problems for the Church. That doesn't mean the "rejects" are bad men -- it just means they are not fit for certain offices. No hard feelings.
-
God loves all men, including those with handicaps. He loves men and women with physical, mental, emotional, and/or spiritual illness. But He doesn't will that they be promoted to "Spokesman for the anti-Modernist Resistance".
In that case, perhaps it is time to rein in Pablo.
-
God loves all men, including those with handicaps. He loves men and women with physical, mental, emotional, and/or spiritual illness. But He doesn't will that they be promoted to "Spokesman for the anti-Modernist Resistance".
In that case, perhaps it is time to rein in Pablo.
I'm doing my best -- everything in my power, that is. Unfortunately it may not be enough.
But it will certainly help.
-
Thank you, Matthew, for the info. I had no idea this chap 'Pablo' was a lay exorcist. In truth, I thought only priests, ie ordained men, could be exorcists, and even that with special training. In fact, what is a 'lay exorcist' and what does he do? Is it permitted by the Church - by Church, I mean traditional Church, not the modernist version? And, what about Fr Pfeiffer and his connection with this 'Pablo'?
I'm rather curious.
-
And, what about Fr Pfeiffer and his connection with this 'Pablo'?
I'm rather curious.
Also Matthew, did Fr. Pfeiffer reply to your letter regarding this?
-
I feel like an idiot, because I didn't read the linked article in Matthew's original post, but just had a knee-jerk reaction to the phrase "Spokesman for the anti-Modernist Resistance" in relation to a disturbed individual, and immediately thought of poor Pablo. He certainly needs our prayers.
Does anyone know if Fr. Pfeiffer is aware of Pablo's extra-curricular activities?
-
I feel like an idiot, because I didn't read the linked article in Matthew's original post, but just had a knee-jerk reaction to the phrase "Spokesman for the anti-Modernist Resistance" in relation to a disturbed individual, and immediately thought of poor Pablo. He certainly needs our prayers.
Does anyone know if Fr. Pfeiffer is aware of Pablo's extra-curricular activities?
From what I can tell, he doesn't seem to understand what Pablo is doing.
First of all, when laymen use sacramentals and light exorcism prayers, it's FOR THEMSELVES and usually they aren't having physical manifestations of the demon. They're used in a precautionary or routine manner. When obsessions or manifestations happen, a professional must be called -- not a lay exorcist "vigilante".
Simple question for Pablo: Why not give his "customers" the bottle of holy water and a photocopy of the prayers? Let them say the prayers themselves. They will be just as effective.
In fact, it would be safer for his "clients" to take care of it themselves. Every possession, obsession, etc. God must permit. So He will provide the necessary graces, relief, etc. *to those afflicted by the devil*. He doesn't necessarily provide any graces to third-party laymen who get involved of their own will!
In other words, if you -- a layman -- decide to do battle with a devil hounding another man, you're on your own! Rational animal vs. devil with an angelic intellect and demonic power. Good luck!
You mess with the devil, you can have serious issues. Like getting possessed! Read Acts chapter 19 to see what I'm talking about. 2 sons of Sceva tried to exorcise a possessed man on their own, without Church authority, and ended up getting sodomized by the possessed man.
A few other points that can't be left out:
1. Pablo has owned the article. He admits to the overall truth of its contents, and he actually likes the article because it puts Catholics in the spotlight for a change. Also, Pablo gave the interview! And everything in the article is corroborated by Pablo's own posts over the past 8 months. People can forget about "detraction", "inaccuracy", etc. We're going by PABLO'S OWN MOUTH here.
2. Pablo speaks about exorcisms, doing battle with the devil, and the devil in general A LOT in his own posts on CathInfo as recently as weeks or months ago. So he hasn't changed in 12 years.
3. Pablo isn't acting like he's just reciting a few precautionary prayers and taping a few St. Michael or St. Benedict medals in a room. He speaks with bravado and braggadocio, acting the superhero and speaking of injuries he's received "on the job" while performing exorcisms.
-
Thank you, Matthew, for the info. I had no idea this chap 'Pablo' was a lay exorcist. In truth, I thought only priests, ie ordained men, could be exorcists, and even that with special training. In fact, what is a 'lay exorcist' and what does he do? Is it permitted by the Church - by Church, I mean traditional Church, not the modernist version? And, what about Fr Pfeiffer and his connection with this 'Pablo'?
I'm rather curious.
You're right -- there's no such thing in Catholicism as a "lay exorcist".
Charismatics and various protestants have them, however.
Even Pope Benedict XVI would be against what Pablo was/is doing.
The Catholic Church selects certain priests, renowned for their learning and holiness, and gives them faculties to do exorcisms. A priest must have the permission of his bishop to do an exorcism.
Does that give you some idea of the gravity of the situation?
Now read the article, and see how Pablo treats it. He thinks he's Batman.
-
Effective immediately, no links are permitted to websites owned or operated by a "lay exorcist" -- a concept foreign to Catholic sensibility.
Wow I missed alot in my frequent absences. Seems it was rather a bit worse than I thought. "Lay exorcist"? Is that like an "Extraordinary Minister" on steroids?
-
I must admit, I did not understand this situation. I was not informed about the
dangers of "lay exorcism" practices, because I have heard people I had
thought were good informed Catholics tell about using holy water and other
sacramentals (green scapulars, miraculous medals) to place on location to help
out third parties who request their assistance. But these were never dealing
first hand with people who are possessed and trying to make the devil leave
the person possessed. At most it was just placing sacramentals in their home
with their permission.
Some of these activities within my experience have resulted in consequences
that were not the kind of thing you look forward to having happen. But there
was nothing really bad that happened, all in all. Nor, as often as I have
mentioned them to priests, never has any priest of any kind EVER told me
that it was an activity that is 'dangerous' or 'ill advised' or 'prohibited' AND
NEVER have they said it is "strictly forbidden." But I guess talking about it
on this forum is strictly forbidden. Okay, so be it.
I read the canon law copy of the New Code linked on the other thread, and I
noticed these last 4 canons were the final ones of the docuмent. So it would
seem that the entire New Code of Canon Law, 1983, ends with these 4 canons
on exorcism. Is this correct? If so, that's something of interest in itself.
But as for Pablo, I am beginning to see how it makes sense for Matthew to have
done what he did, including the banning of Pablo and the prohibition of the
links, because it is for the good of the Church and for resistance to error.
I had been asking for some kind of authoritative docuмent that teaches that
laymen are always strictly forbidden from acting as agents in helping third
parties to exorcise their home or property from demonic influence. That is,
distinguished (but not separated!) from exorcism of individuals who are under
demonic possession. For the New Code does not specifically touch on this
aspect, that of using sacramentals and saying prayers in the homes of others.
I feel like an idiot, because I didn't
read the linked article in Matthew's original post, but just had a knee-jerk reaction to the phrase "Spokesman for the anti-Modernist Resistance" in relation to a disturbed individual, and immediately thought of poor Pablo. He certainly needs our prayers.
Does anyone know if Fr. Pfeiffer is aware of Pablo's extra-curricular activities?
From what I can tell, he doesn't seem to understand what Pablo is doing.
First of all, when laymen use sacramentals and light exorcism prayers, it's FOR THEMSELVES and usually they aren't having physical manifestations of the demon. They're used in a precautionary or routine manner. When obsessions or manifestations happen, a professional must be called -- not a lay exorcist "vigilante".
Simple question for Pablo: Why not give his "customers" the bottle of holy water and a photocopy of the prayers? Let them say the prayers themselves. They will be just as effective.
In fact, it would be safer for his "clients" to take care of it themselves. Every possession, obsession, etc. God must permit. So He will provide the necessary graces, relief, etc. *to those afflicted by the devil*. He doesn't necessarily provide any graces to third-party laymen who get involved of their own will!
In other words, if you -- a layman -- decide to do battle with a devil hounding another man, you're on your own! Rational animal vs. devil with an angelic intellect and demonic power. Good luck!
You mess with the devil, you can have serious issues. Like getting possessed! Read Acts chapter 19 to see what I'm talking about. 2 sons of Sceva tried to exorcise a possessed man on their own, without Church authority, and ended up getting sodomized by the possessed man.
A few other points that can't be left out:
1. Pablo has owned the article. He admits to the overall truth of its contents, and he actually likes the article because it puts Catholics in the spotlight for a change. Also, Pablo gave the interview! And everything in the article is corroborated by Pablo's own posts over the past 8 months. People can forget about "detraction", "inaccuracy", etc. We're going by PABLO'S OWN MOUTH here.
2. Pablo speaks about exorcisms, doing battle with the devil, and the devil in general A LOT in his own posts on CathInfo as recently as weeks or months ago. So he hasn't changed in 12 years.
3. Pablo isn't acting like he's just reciting a few precautionary prayers and taping a few St. Michael or St. Benedict medals in a room. He speaks with bravado and braggadocio, acting the superhero and speaking of injuries he's received "on the job" while performing exorcisms.
Looking at it now, it makes me wonder if it isn't possible that Pablo has somehow
picked up some kind of demonic obsession, or worse, himself, by doing these
things?
For example, by showing up in someone's house and sprinkling holy water
around, then "waiting" to see what happens, any manifestations such as "tiles"
flying off the wall might actually be due to Pablo's presence there, and not so
much the house itself, or even the tiles and how they got there in the first place!
IOW, he might be INTRODUCING a problem to the house, not ALLEVIATING one!
FURTHERMORE,
IF that is the case, THEN it logically follows that Pablo's influence on the CI forum
could conceivably effect some manner of demonic influence on CI - and who
knows what that might be? Computers malfunctioning? Website crashes? Posts
going in the wrong places? Downloads not working? Images being corrupted?
Members having family difficulties?
This could be a very long list!
And each one is a potential Matthew headache.
Thank you, Matthew, for the info. I had no idea this chap 'Pablo' was a lay exorcist. In truth, I thought only priests, ie ordained men, could be exorcists, and even that with special training. In fact, what is a 'lay exorcist' and what does he do? Is it permitted by the Church - by Church, I mean traditional Church, not the modernist version? And, what about Fr Pfeiffer and his connection with this 'Pablo'?
I'm rather curious.
You're right -- there's no such thing in Catholicism as a "lay exorcist".
Charismatics and various protestants have them, however.
Even Pope Benedict XVI would be against what Pablo was/is doing.
The Catholic Church selects certain priests, renowned for their learning and holiness, and gives them faculties to do exorcisms. A priest must have the permission of his bishop to do an exorcism.
Does that give you some idea of the gravity of the situation?
Now read the article, and see how Pablo treats it. He thinks he's Batman.
Uh, he wants to be called "Pope Emeritus Benedict." Ain't that nice? We may
be able to just say "PEB" for short ... or "BDW."* I guess that means he knows
that since he's the first Pope to be called "Pope Emeritus" then the "XVI" is now
superfluous. Well, then, when sometime in the future there is another Pope
Emeritus Benedict, for example XVII, that would make this one Pope Emeritus
Benedict I, and the second one Pope Emeritus Benedict II. Oh, what a tangled
web we weave...! But that ought to help everyone forget about the earlier
popes Benedict, up to Benedict XV, and just think about the post-Conciliar
popes, which is what these guys really want to accomplish, anyway!
The canon law code says that an exorcist needs either the permission of the
local ordinary in whose territory the exorcism is to take place, OR he needs
the permission of his own bishop to do the exorcism. I would suppose that
when CMRI priests do exorcisms, they are doing them under the LATTER
classification, and not the former one, which is to say, they would not likely
have obtained any permission from the local ordinary bishop, who would be
NovusOrdo.
And that would explain how Fr. Malachi Martin could have had permission from
his own bishop without having had any permission from the local ordinary to
be involved with, or to conduct an exorcism, that is, unless his description of
that was another one of his partially fictitious tales that we were never told
how much or what was fiction.
*BDW = Bishop Dressed in White - he may now be the only bishop in the
world who always dresses in white, unless there are some in India, for
example, where white cassocks are commonplace for priests.
-
*BDW = Bishop Dressed in White - he may now be the only bishop in the
world who always dresses in white, unless there are some in India, for
example, where white cassocks are commonplace for priests.
Priests and Bishops in almost all of the Tropical areas of the world wear white.
-
None of those bishops or priests would have given Sr. Lucy the impression that he was the Holy Father.
-
Ok, you're derailing the thread.
Please discuss Sister Lucy's Fatima prophecy, the possibility of a Pope who could consecrate Russia, etc., the color of cassocks around the world, etc. in another thread.
Thank you.
-
Apologies. Couldn't resist.
Back to topic, I hope Pablo will be reined in and absolutely restricted in his activities by Fr. Pfeiffer for Pablo's own good.
-
Neil Obstat wrote:
I read the canon law copy of the New Code linked on the other thread, and I
noticed these last 4 canons were the final ones of the docuмent. So it would
seem that the entire New Code of Canon Law, 1983, ends with these 4 canons
on exorcism. Is this correct? If so, that's something of interest in itself.
Hi Neil,
The book that was linked was a commentary on the Old Code, not the Code of John Paul II, referred to by many as the "New Code." The volume I posted was published in 1921 and was a commentary on the then new code promulgated by Pope Benedict XV.
The canons do not end there, but the volume ends there. If you want to read the entire series here is a link: http://archive.org/details/1917CodeOfCanonLawCommentary
-
Hi Neil,
The book that was linked was a commentary on the Old Code, not the Code of John Paul II, referred to by many as the "New Code." The volume I posted was published in 1921 and was a commentary on the then new code promulgated by Pope Benedict XV.
The canons do not end there, but the volume ends there. If you want to read the entire series here is a link: http://archive.org/details/1917CodeOfCanonLawCommentary
Oh. Well, that's informative. Thank you, Ambrose. It didn't seem to be a very
appropriate way to close the commentary - sort of suddenly. So being the end of
a volume makes a lot of sense.
This complete edition might prove useful for something.