Monday, September 19, 2016

Exorcise In Futility


 On September 16, 2016, Fr. Gabriel Amorth passed on at the age of 91. Fr. Amorth was the exorcist for Rome and wrote two books, An Exorcist Tells His Story and An Exorcist: More Stories. Fr. Amorth claimed there were "members of Satanic sects" in the Vatican including some "cardinals." Why a man who performed so many exorcisms (and ordained in the 1950s) didn't see the devil as the post-Vatican II "popes" baffles me. He was a very controversial figure, but one thing he said (and with which I completely agree), was his contention--supported in sound theology--that the new Rite of Exorcism imposed by John Paul the Great Apostate in 1999 was "useless" in battling demons. This post will demonstrate why this is so.

The New Rite Of Exorcism Examined

In January of 1999, "Pope" John Paul II promulgated De Exorcismis et Supplicationibus Quibusdam, a new Rite of Exorcism, supplanting the venerable and traditional Rite of 1614 AD. 

I.  A New (and false) Definition of Exorcism
The new Rite is based on the Vatican II Catechism of the Catholic (sic) Church of 1992, which defines exorcism as, "When the Church asks publicly and authoritatively in the name of Jesus Christ that a person or object be protected against the power of the Evil One and withdrawn from his dominion, it is called exorcism." (#1673; Emphasis mine). An exorcism is NOT a prayer asking God to release someone from the power of the devil.  Exorcism is a command issued to Satan in the name of God. The very word exorcism tells you that – exorcizo, I adjure. The Traditional Rite states, "Exorcizo te, immundissime spiritus…in nomine Domini nostri Jesu Christi" – "I exorcize you, unclean spirit…in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ." It is a command issued to the demon in the name of Christ. The new Rite gives the Vatican II sect "priest" a choice of "deprecatory" and "imperative" exorcisms. The "deprecatory" is simply a prayer to God asking for His help. The "imperative" is commanding the demon in the name of Christ. According to the new Rite's rubrics, the deprecatory must always be used, and the imperative is an "option" rarely, if ever, to be used.

II.  Twelve (12) of the Twenty-one (21) Directives to the Exorcist are Omitted in the New Rite

Here are the old directives (with their former numbers) that are totally omitted:

4. In order to better test these signs [of possession], the priest should question the demoniac after one or other exorcism as to what he feels in his mind or body, so that in this way he can also learn which words more greatly disturb the demons, so as then to bear down on them and repeat them all the more.

5. The priest should stay alert for tricks and deceptions that demons use to mislead the exorcist. For they will give false answers as much as possible, and show themselves only with difficulty, in order that the exorcist at length become worn out and give up the exorcism; or the ill person might appear not to be harassed by the devil.

6. Occasionally, after they appear, the demons hide and leave the body almost free of all disturbance, so that the ill person might think he is completely freed. But the exorcist should not stop until he sees the signs of liberation.

8. Some demons point out an act of witchcraft which has been done [to cause possession], by whom it was done, and the way to undo it; but the demoniac should be careful not to have recourse to sorcerers, fortune-tellers, or other such persons, on this account, but should go to the ministers of the Church rather than use any superstitious or otherwise illicit means.

9. Sometimes the devil grants the sick person relief and permits him to receive the Holy Eucharist so that he might seem to have departed. In short, there are countless devices and tricks of the devil to deceive man, which the exorcist should beware, lest he be deceived.

13. …Also relics of Saints, where available, safely and properly fastened and covered, may be reverently applied to the chest or head of the possessed. Care must be taken that the sacred objects are not improperly handled or harmed in any way by the demon. Because of danger of irreverence, the Holy Eucharist should not be placed upon the head of the possessed person or elsewhere on his body.

14. The exorcist should not engage in a great deal of talking or ask unnecessary or curious questions, especially concerning future or secret matters not pertaining to his task. But he should command the unclean spirit to be silent, except to answer his questions. Nor should he believe the demon if he pretends to be the soul of some Saint or deceased person or a good Angel.

15. However, there are necessary questions, for example, concerning the number and names of the possessing spirits, the time and reason they entered, and other things of this sort. The exorcist should restrain or spurn the rest of the devil’s nonsense, laughter and foolishness, and advise those present, who should be few, that they must not pay attention to these things nor question the possessed person, but rather humbly and earnestly pray to God for him.

16. The exorcist should read and carry out the exorcism with strength, authority, great faith, humility and fervor, and when he sees that the spirit is especially tormented, then he should persist and bear down all the more. And whenever he sees that the possessed person is being disturbed in some part of his body, or stung, or that a swelling appears somewhere, he should make the sign of the cross on that area and sprinkle it with holy water which should be on hand.

17. He is also to observe at which words the demons tremble more, and then he should repeat these words more often. When he reaches the threatening words, he should say them repeatedly, always increasing the punishment. If he sees that he is making progress, he should continue for two, three, or four hours, or even longer if he can, until he obtains the victory.

19. If he is exorcising a woman, he should always have persons of integrity with him to hold the possessed person while she is agitated by the demon. These people should be close relatives of the suffering woman if possible. Mindful of decency, the exorcist should be careful not to say or do anything which could be an occasion of an evil thought to himself or the others.

20. While he is exorcising, he should use the words of Sacred Scripture rather than his own or someone else’s. He should command the demon to tell him if he is held in that body because of some magic, or sorcerer’s signs or devices. If the possessed person has consumed things of this sort orally, he should vomit them up. If they are elsewhere outside his body, he should reveal where they are, and once found, they are to be burned. The possessed person should also be advised to make known all his temptations to the exorcist.

III.  Other Omissions

The Traditional Rite of Exorcism had a three-fold sequence of exorcisms, which is now a single "prayer for relief."

Compare:
Traditional Rite Of Exorcism (1614):
Exorcism #1
151 words (in the Latin)
6 Signs of the Cross
13 negative appellations for the devil
7 commands
4 Old/New Testament references

New Rite of Exorcism (1999):
Exorcism #1 (optional)
193 words
4 Signs of the Cross
9 negative appellations for the devil
9 commands
4 Old/New Testament references

Traditional Rite of Exorcism (1614):
Exorcism #2
442 words 
23 Signs of the Cross 
Signing of breast and forehead 
14 "Imperat tibi" (direct commands)
3 "Adjuro te" (I adjure you)
Mention of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary 
Biblical images of demon-animals being trodden upon

New Rite of Exorcism (1999):
Exorcism #2 (the only one mandated by the rubrics)
162 words 
3 Signs of the Cross 
No signing of breast and forehead
0 "Imperat tibi" references
3 "Adjuro te" (I adjure you)
No mention of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary 
No Biblical images of demon-animals being trodden upon

Traditional Rite of Exorcism (1614):
Exorcism #3 
389 words
12 Signs of the Cross 
11 Old/New Testament images 
14 commands (Give place-Depart-Be gone)
Eject-Expel-Repel sequence
Threat of Hell-fire

New Rite of Exorcism (1999):
Exorcism #3 (optional)
142 words 
1 Sign of the Cross 
1 mild New Testament image
8 commands
No Eject-Expel-Repel sequence
No threat of Hell-fire 


Conclusion

 As you can see, the New Rite of Exorcism is really no exorcism at all. Just as the sacrament of Extreme Unction has become a "spiritual get-well-soon card" in the Vatican II sect's "Anointing of the Sick," exorcism is little more than asking for God's help while downplaying all the sacred signs of our Faith. Even when a validly ordained priest uses it, like the late Fr. Amorth, it proves useless. Not satisfied with the elimination of the priesthood, Wotyla had to destroy the Rite of Exorcism itself. After all, why would the Modernist Vatican want to keep those traditional prayers asking their new and infernal master to leave them? 

37 comments:

  1. Great post,I hadn't ever read comparisons of the "new" and traditional rite of Exorcism.
    The only thing I knew was that it had been changed.
    Did anyone to your knowledge ever ask Fr.Amorth why he stayed in the Novus Ordo?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, to the best of my knowledge, Fr Amorth was never asked that question.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. In some parts of India at Eastertide the parish priest goes around the locality blessing the houses of local Catholics. This year in a certain village the priest when blessing a room in a house noticed a dark figure prancing about. Staring at it he could make out that it had horns and a tail. Whatever prayer/blessing he did the figure disappeared.( I heard that a family member of this household is involved in the occult ) On the way back to his rectory he sensed that the creature was following him. He began to see the demon roaming around the church premises. The priest's health collapsed and ( I was told ) he suffered a heart attack. He has been replaced as the parish priest. I briefly met this man once. He is of course ordained in the New Rite and he was using the New Rite's Book of Blessings.

      Delete
    3. Of course, there is no way to verify this story. It would serve to prove the poor man was suffered (at least in part) for lack of a valid ordination and efficacious Rite of Exorcism.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  2. I would like to know the success rate of novus ordo presbyters.
    Read this comment recently..
    "If the FSSP & ICKSP aren't valid due to new rite bishops who 'ordained' these men,why are their exorcisms successful?"
    Now I have no idea if their exorcisms are successful and I hold these men to not receiving holy orders nor being priest's.
    With that said its an interesting question.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think you hit the nail on the head; how do we know the exorcisms were valid? There's no way to accurately discern true posession and who (if anyone) was delivered.

      That being said, couldn't a demon leave to make a "priest" seem valid and keep them in the false Vatican 2 sect?

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Yes that's a great insight,hadn't thought of that before.

      Delete
  3. Introibo you seem to call Fr. Armoth 'Fr' without the inverted commas? Did he remain a priest having subscribed to the heresies of Vatican II and saying the new Mass? not to talk of recognizing false pope? Without deviating from this topic, was Archbishop Leferbvre a heretic or an associate to heresy? He recognized anti popes as true popes and signed the Vatican II document? Are those who recognize anti popes as popes and go to Novus Ordo Church in heresy? and therefore outside the Church? sorry for the deviation. I always cherish your teachings of the faith. Thanks

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As I understand it once a man is validily ordained he receives an indelible mark on his soul forever as a Priest in the order of Melchizedek.
      Please correct me if I am wrong.

      Delete
    2. Thank you for the kind words.

      You present several issues which need to be addressed.

      1. The character of the priesthood, validly bestowed, lasts for all eternity. "Tu es sacerdos in aeternum"--- Thou art a priest forever. Three sacraments bestow a character on the soul that can never be undone; Holy Orders, Baptism, and Confirmation. Fr. Amorth was validly ordained in the 1950s so he will always be a priest in time and eternity, heretic or not.

      2. If someone (Abp. Lefebvre) mistakes a heretic for a pope (whatever the reason) but rejects his heresy and is not in actual communion with him because of those errors, he remains a Catholic.

      3. Those who attend the Novus Bogus accept the false teachings of V2. They are not Catholic but members of the V2 sect. They are in actual union with Francis.

      The "recognize and resist" position of Lefebvre, while illogical and dangerous, does not make one non-Catholic. I call them pseudo-Traditionalists---those who in the words of Fr Cekada----are really sedevacantists but just don't realize it yet!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    3. To the comment directly below Lord Belish, you are correct.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  4. Introibo,
    You stated above that the "character of the priesthood, validly bestowed, lasts for all eternity". Could you tell me if that is what Romans 11:29 refers to? "For the gifts and the calling of God are without repentance".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. According to Bible scholar Haydock,
      Here is the explanation of that verse:

      ". According to the gospel, indeed, they are enemies for your sake. That is, enemies both to you, because they see the gospel preached and received by you, and enemies to God, because he has rejected them at present for their wilful blindness: yet according to election, God having once made them his elect, and because of their forefathers, the patriarchs, they are most dear for the sake of the fathers: for the gifts and the calling of God are without repentance, in as much as God is unchangeable, and his promises, made absolutely, cannot fail."

      It deals with the Gentiles and Israel not Holy Orders.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  5. Introibo,
    Thanks. I always come away from your website learning something every time I visit!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glad I can be of service to God in helping others know the truth,Joann!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  6. Reading interview with Fr.Amorth.
    He said
    "John Paul 2 is a great help during exorcism the Demons don't like him."
    Well in response Demons hate everyone literally so,that isnt some big revelation.
    It's frustrating reading and hearing all of these stories because nothing can be confirmed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree. It's a sign of the times when if possible, "even the elect would be deceived." God bless you my friend!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  7. I don't consider JP2 a Pope nor a Roman Catholic.
    The interview with Fr.Amorth I was referring to made me question his accounts of JP2 "helping destroy the Devil's plans."
    If anything JP2 helped Satan in numerous ways.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're correct. I have no disagreement with what you've just stated.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  8. Hi Introibo,

    Have you read Fr. Amorth's book "An Exorcist Tells His Story (Ignatius Press, 1999)? On pages 173-174 he wrote: "I know that John Paul II has performed at least two exorcisms."

    Would you care to comment?

    Anonymous 2
    (same one that posted comments in "Putting "Unity" Before Truth")
    Henceforth, I will just refer to myself as Two.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The exorcisms could be staged to make him seem legitimate. He has the power of exorcist by virtue of Orders. To simulate it on two occasions to further the cause of Satan is not implausible.

      This is my conjecture. Why Fr Amorth didn't see him (Wotyla) for who he was (worshipping with animists) baffles me. For exorcisms, the best expert was the late Traditionalist Bishop Robert McKenna.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Hello Introibo,

      Yes, it's all baffling.

      I hadn't realized the book is a translation of the twelve Italian edition of 1994. It's curious that it doesn't mention the first edition's publication date. If one assumes at least 2 years for every edition, the first could have been in 1970 or earlier. Skipping around I found inconsistencies which might be attributed to changes in his thinking because of Vatican II. He seems to alternate between a traditional understanding and one informed by Vatican II.

      For example, he wrote this about the increase in the influence of evil and demonic possesions: "We can see the proliferation, especially among the young, of spiritism, witchcraft, and the occult. We can add to this the pursuit of yoga, Zen, transcendental meditation: these are all practices based on reincarnation, on dissolving the human person into divinity, or, in any case, on other doctrines that are unacceptable to Christians. We do not need to go to India anymore to find gurus; we can find them at our doorsteps. Often these apparently innocent practices bring about hallucinations and schizophrenic conditions. To this I can add the exponential proliferartion of many sects, many of which bear a distincly satanic mark" (pages 53-54, Exorcist Tells His Story").

      But later (p. 160) he discusses "prana" therapy', and seems to be against it, yet also writes: "...I have known some truly selfless prana therapists, people of faith, who make their gifts available as a service to others in a spirit of true charity." Then he adds: "Unfortunately they are extremely rare -"two for every thousand" - a renowned Venetian exorcist Father Pellegrino Ernetti, told me, validating the caution with which we vview prana therapy. It is by accurately discerning the fruits and methods that we recognize the tree."

      And on page 155 he writes: "I want to stress briefly what the Second Vatican Co8uncil recommends but is not always followed. Rationalism and naturalism took over this ground: extraordinary manifestations, miracles, the presence of saints, apparitions."

      At the end he writes: "Finally, I come to the bishops. It is true that I have been upset with them because I love them and wish for their salvation. The Code of Canon Law does not address the fault of "ommission in office"; but the gospel passage about general judgment as reported by Matthew s a clear indication that the sin of omission can be an unpardonable offense." -- pages 170-171

      ----

      In his second book, demonstrating acceptance of Paul VI, Fr. Amorth quotes the entire text of Paul VI's homily on the theme of the "..smoke of Satan entering into the temple of God" delivered June 29, 1972 . And he analyzes it. In that homily Paul VI had said:

      "I do not know why we have shortened exorcisms. I am not sure it was very realistic or fitting. Still the exorcism is there." At that point Father Amorth commented in a parenthesis between the send and third sentences: "I want to call attention to this public and obvious dissapointment of the Pope, with which all exorcists agree."
      ---"An Exorcist More Stories", Ignatius Press, 2002, translated from ninth Italian edition, 2000, first ed. 1992. p. 67; speech pp 64-72).

      Paul VI was against the shortening of which ritual?

      -----

      As things stand now, I don't see that one can reconcile JPII, Benedict XVI and Francis with what the Church has always taught. I don't see myself in communion with them.

      Any comments on any of the quotes?
      Also, what do you think is the value of other religions, prior to their exposure to Christianity, if any?

      It's after midnight on Saturday.. So I'm not expecting an answer on Sunday anytime soon.

      Peace of Chris!.

      TWO

      Delete
    3. I'm sorry about the many typos in my post. It's Sunday so I will submit a corrected version tomorrow. But in case anyone is reading I will correct one paragraph today, as follows:

      At the end he writes: "Finally, I come to the bishops. It is true that I have been upset with them because I love them and wish for their salvation. The Code of Canon Law does not address the fault of "ommission in office"; but the Gospel passage about general judgment, as reported by Matthew 25, gives us a clear indication that the sin of omission can be an unpardonable offense." -- pages 170-171

      TWO

      Delete
    4. I'm sure you understand (if you've been a Traditionalist for at least a few years--I've been one since 1981) that there are certain clergymen you can't figure out. They live a dichotomy, and I don't pretend to know how or why some of them do it. For example, I knew the late Fr. Paul Marx of Human Life International. His writings and publications on abortion, birth control, marriage, and virtually any other topic of morality on which he opined was 100% orthodox. It could have been written by Pope Pius XII himself. Father was ordained in 1945; he was well-educated and there was never any hint of any scandal. He was a decent person, and I can attest to that fact.

      YET, Fr. Marx used the Novus Bogus "mass" recognized the post-V2 "popes" and accepted Vatican II, which ultimately negates everything he was working to accomplish at Human Life International.

      Fr. Amorth is like him. He's an enigma, saying some truths and accepting some falsehoods. I stick with the teachings of Bishop McKenna on exorcism. One incident was allegedly reported by Malachi Martin (who was not on our side as far as I'm concerned), and several others regarding an attempt (circa 1940) by Pope Pius XII with all the Vatican cardinals and exorcists in trying a "long distance exorcism" on Adolph Hitler. Fr. Amorth was ordained in the 1950s , but must have known of this incident (if true). Maybe that's why he claimed hitler to have been possessed. That's one question I would have loved to ask him.

      Don't worry about typos; you don't want to spend time checking your work like me. Unless it's egregious, I get it.

      God bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    5. Here is a corrected version of my previous post. But if in your sole discretion it's going to cause more confusion than help, there is no need to publish it.

      Hello Introibo,

      Yes, it's all baffling.

      I hadn't realized the book is a translation of the twelfth Italian edition of 1994. It's curious that it doesn't mention the first edition's publication date. If one assumes at least 2 years for every edition, the first could have been in 1970 or earlier. Skipping around I found inconsistencies which might be attributed to changes in his thinking because of Vatican II. He seems to alternate between a traditional understanding and one informed by Vatican II.

      For example, he wrote this about the increase in the influence of evil and demonic possessions: "We can see the proliferation, especially among the young, of spiritism, witchcraft, and the occult. We can add to this the pursuit of yoga, Zen, transcendental meditation: these are all practices based on reincarnation, on dissolving the human person into divinity, or, in any case, on other doctrines that are unacceptable to Christians. We do not need to go to India anymore to find gurus; we can find them at our doorsteps. Often these apparently innocent practices bring about hallucinations and schizophrenic conditions. To this I can add the exponential proliferation of many sects, many of which bear a distinctly satanic mark" (pages 53-54, Exorcist Tells His Story").

      But later (p. 160) he discusses "prana" therapy', and seems to be against it, yet also writes: "...I have known some truly selfless prana therapists, people of faith, who make their gifts available as a service to others in a spirit of true charity." Then he adds: "Unfortunately they are extremely rare -"two for every thousand" - a renowned Venetian exorcist Father Pellegrino Ernetti, told me, validating the caution with which we view prana therapy. It is by accurately discerning the fruits and methods that we recognize the tree."

      And on page 155 he writes: "I want to stress briefly what the Second Vatican Council recommends but is not always followed. Rationalism and naturalism took over this ground: extraordinary manifestations, miracles, the presence of saints, apparitions."

      At the end he writes: "Finally, I come to the bishops. It is true that I have been upset with them because I love them and wish for their salvation. The Code of Canon Law does not address the fault of "omission in office"; but the Gospel passage about general judgment, as reported by Matthew 25, gives us a clear indication that the sin of omission can be an unpardonable offense." -- pages 170-171

      ----

      In his second book, demonstrating acceptance of Paul VI, Fr. Amorth quotes the entire text of Paul VI's homily on the theme of the "..smoke of Satan entering into the temple of God" delivered June 29, 1972 . And he analyzes it. In that homily Paul VI had said:

      "I do not know why we have shortened exorcisms. I am not sure it was very realistic or fitting. Still the exorcism is there." At that point Father Amorth commented in a parenthesis between the second and third sentences: "I want to call attention to this public and obvious disappointment of the Pope, with which all exorcists agree."
      ---"An Exorcist More Stories", Ignatius Press, 2002, translated from ninth Italian edition, 2000, first ed. 1992. p. 67; speech pp 64-72

      Paul VI was against the shortening of which ritual?
      -----

      As things stand now, I don't see that one can reconcile JPII, Benedict XVI and Francis with what the Church has always taught. I don't see myself in communion with them.

      Any comments on any of the quotes?
      Also, what do you think is the value of other religions, prior to their exposure to Christianity, if any?

      It's after midnight on Saturday. So I'm not expecting an answer on Sunday or anytime soon.

      Peace of Christ!.

      TWO

      Delete
    6. Introibo,

      To continue our discussion, let me say a little about myself. My First Communion was kneeling down in a traditional Catholic mass circa 1962. But the seed of faith was nourished by my grandfather since as far back as I have any memory. And although I was very devout as a child, I effectively left the Church in the late 60's, came back in the early 70's, and left again in the mid 70's, but not because of Vatican II. I again returned to what I thought was the Church in mid 2001 by the grace of Our Lord, after an experience that I am certain was of supernatural origin.

      But I did not make the distinction between traditionalist and novus ordo for most of the time since my return. My focus was the Holy Eucharist. I came back with the pre-Vatican II faith I had as a child but supernaturally invigorated by this grace I had received. I accepted transubstantiation. I am certain of it. But the abuses I witnessed over the subsequent years were astonishing.

      Having said all of this, please note that although I am no longer in communion with Francis, Benedict XVI and JPII, I consider the novus ordo consecration valid. The reason I don't go to any novus ordo mass is that I can't honestly pray to God in communion with Francis, and with those in communion with him. But I don't go to traditionalist masses because they deny Christ's presence in the Novus Ordo consecration, and so I am not in communion with them, for that would be to deny Christ.

      In addition I have doubt about the Thuc ordinations. Christ's institution of the Eucharist was extremely simple, and I see that, and not the subsequent traditional mass, as the foundation. But, at this time, I don't know of any priest, traditionalist or not, that I'm ready to trust and whose faith I can endorse without reservations, although I don't mean to say there aren't any.

      In any case, now that you know a little more of my position, please let me know what you think of the Paul VI's quote in my previous post. He sounds quite like he should, doesn't he? What are 1 to 3 objections which you are certain make him a heretic? Lumen Gentium? Which specific sentences in Lumen Gentium? I'm undecided about him.

      Peace of Christ!

      TWO

      Delete
    7. Please see my post of 2/29/15 and my post of 1/24/13 regarding "Paul the Sick." He signed the heretical decrees of V2 and was a sodomite who put the "Gay Mafia" in place.

      If you believe the Novus Bogus as valid you must accept the V2 sacraments with their false theology, defective intentions, matter and form. You do not "deny Christ" by denying a valid Eucharist EVEN IF mistaken. To have good theological grounds for rejecting it in the V2 sect's buildings does not mean you deny Transubstantiation or the Real Presence.

      The Traditional Mass was the fruit of the guidance of the Holy Ghost. Pope Pius XII condemned those who wanted to return to the way Mass was offered in earlier times (Mediator Dei).

      Somethings to think about!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  9. Introibo, you are a true son of your father, like they say in Africa here. Please write more. I am sorry to persist on Abp. Lefebvre. I stated elsewhere that he was a heretic but many denied it without giving me a satisfactory answer. Please state clearly for me: was Abp Lefebvre a heretic? He signed Vatica2 documents, accepts the novus ordo orders and mass as valid, so not completely rejecting John Pal IIs errors? I promise to rest.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Lord Belish,
      Please give me 48 hrs. to formulate a reply. I want to have time to explain as best I can.
      Your questions are always welcome here!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. This is a difficult question, and I have never held myself out as a theologian. What follows are two possibilities and my personal opinion; nothing more.

      1. In order to be a heretic, one must deny "A teaching which is directly contradictory to a truth revealed by God and proposed to the faithful as such by the Church." (See theologian Parente, Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology, Bruce Publishing Company, [1951], pg. 123).

      2. Did Archbishop Lefebvre commit heresy?

      (a) It can be argued he did (at least materially) because of the documents he signed.

      (b) He repented, and abjured this mistake, and since there is no pope to receive his formal abjuration, his public rejection of these V2 errors made him formally Catholic even if he had been materially a heretic.

      ---In opposition to the above opinion---

      (i) He did not sign two of the documents believing them "irreconcilable" with past teaching and were in error as they were written, if not formally heretical. He believed that the others could be "reconciled" with past teaching, and were not heretical.

      (ii) This was a unique situation; sedevacantism was not well understood by most. If "Pope" Paul VI and the majority of bishops approved of these documents he had the duty to go along because it had "papal" approval.

      (iii) There was no intent to deny any tenet of the Faith; he was not obstinate. As soon as he realized the heresy, he repented of going along.

      (iv) Since there was no intent to deny any article of Faith, and he believed the documents (except two) were capable of a correct, orthodox interpretation since they were promulgated by a man he (wrongly) thought to be pope--these extraordinary circumstances excuse his act of signing the documents.

      I believe the first is the more probable opinion. The rest is not really a problem. Mistaking the person of the pope is not heresy. His acceptance of the Novus Bogus was QUALIFIED that it "could be" valid in certain circumstances. He rejected it, entertained sedevacantism, and while "recognizing" the Modernist Vatican, totally rejected their errors and refused to be in formal communion with them.

      The Archbishop was a good man who lived in difficult times. He may be guilty of material heresy because of the extraordinary circumstances, but he recanted soon thereafter.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    3. Speaking as a traditional Roman Catholic (sedevacantist) I think Archbishop Lefebvre was doing the best he could in an early stage of the apostasy during the pre-internet era.
      Information was hard to obtain,both lay people and Clergy were in the dark on the Anti-Pope actions,words,and deeds.
      I hold Archbishop Lefebvre in high esteem.Him and his order were among the first generation of Remnant Roman Catholics keeping the true faith alive.

      Delete
    4. I am in full agreement with you!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  10. The early Church had laity performing exorcisms.

    Technically any member of the Church can perform one, but the Church regulated them by restricting them to the clergy as things got out of hand.

    Perhaps then, the FSSP could perform them sucessfully. Since the ecclesial law restricting them to the clergy could not have foreseen such times as this, then the Divine Law given in Mark 16, that believers would cast out demons, without the distinction between lay or clerical state, is still in force, even if the Church law is currently suspended due to the extraordinary unforseen situation.

    It may be likened to supplied jurisdiction for confessions.

    This does not mean anyone can now go out and do them, and one would be playing with real fire if one tried.

    ReplyDelete
  11. By the way, Fr Amorth supported the Medjugorje apparitions at one time. I am not sure if he retracted this position.

    He was still able to perform exorcisms as he did them in persona Christi.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very interesting, Mike. I wasn't aware of Fr. Amorth's support for those phony apparitions. I agree with your assessment on exorcism. The order of exorcist is the third of the four minor orders on the way to the priesthood. They are non-ordained men. You are very correct that this does not mean the laity should go around performing exorcisms and confront that kind of evil. Traditionalist clergy should be sought out---and they use the traditional rite of exorcism that actually works!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  12. Thanks o lot introibo. You answer I'd very apt

    ReplyDelete
  13. I'm sorry about the many typos in my post. It's Sunday so I will submit a corrected version tomorrow. But in case anyone is reading I will correct one paragraph today, as follows:

    At the end he writes: "Finally, I come to the bishops. It is true that I have been upset with them because I love them and wish for their salvation. The Code of Canon Law does not address the fault of "ommission in office"; but the Gospel passage about general judgment, as reported by Matthew 25, gives us a clear indication that the sin of omission can be an unpardonable offense." -- pages 170-171

    ReplyDelete